2005 Cover Letter to States

May 1, 2006
To the Reader:
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), and the U.S.
Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) are proud to
release this joint 2005 Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation. The
transportation departments in all 50 states and the District of Columbia responded to the
survey.
States provided $9.5 billion in funding for transit in Fiscal Year 2005 (FY 2005).
This compares with about $7.3 billion in funding provided by the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation that same year. The $9.5
billion in state funding for FY 2005 is more than double the $3.7 billion provided by the
states in FY 1990.
The most utilized sources of funding for transit in the states and the District of
Columbia included:
•
•
•
•
•
•

General fund
Gas tax
Motor vehicle/rental car sales taxes
Bond proceeds
Registration/title/license fees
General sales tax

19 states
15 states
9 states
8 states
8 states
7 states

About 48 per cent of the state funding for transit in FY 2005 was designated for
operating assistance only, about 19 per cent was for capital purposes only, and the
remaining nearly 31 per cent could be used for capital or operating purposes.
This survey of the transportation departments in the 50 states and the District of
Columbia was distributed and compiled by the U.S. DOT Bureau of Transportation
Statistics. We would like to thank Lori Putman, and Tom Bolle of the BTS staff for their
efforts that led to the development of this report. We would also like to thank the State
DOT officials who responded to this survey. This information will be useful to officials at
all levels of government involved with transit funding.
Question about the report should be directed to one of the following individuals:
AASHTO
APTA
BTS

David Clawson
Richard Weaver
Lori Putman

202-624-5807
202-496-4809
202-366-5336

davidc@aashto.org
rweaver@apta.com
lori.putman@dot.gov

May 1, 2006
Page – 2
The report is available on the AASHTO web site at www.transportation.org, and at the
APTA web site at www.apta.com.

Sincerely,

John Horsley
Executive Director
AASHTO

William W. Millar
President
APTA

William Bannister
Acting Deputy Director
BTS

Survey of State Funding
for Public Transportation
2005

Prepared by the Department of Transportation
Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation--2005
The following report provides a summary of state transit funding for the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Information includes funding sources and amounts, programs, eligible uses and allocation, and per capital state transit
funding. The report also includes an overview of the results of transit-related state and local ballot initiatives held in
2005. The report was prepared by the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, Office of Survey Programs.
Table of Contents
1.0

Introduction
Background
Methodology
Report Contents
And Organization

1-1
1-1
1-4
1-5

2.0

State Transit Program Details
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota

2-1
2-2
2-4
2-6
2-8
2-10
2-12
2-14
2-16
2-18
2-20
2-24
2-26
2-28
2-30
2-32
2-34
2-36
2-38
2-40
2-42
2-44
2-48
2-50
2-52
2-56
2-58
2-60
2-62
2-64
2-66
2-68
2-70
2-72
2-76
2-80
2-83
2-84
2-86
2-88
2-92
2-94
2-96

Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
3.0

4.0

Highlights of State
Transit Funding, 2003
State Transit Programs
Across the U.S.
State Transit
Funding Summary
Overview of State and
Local Ballot Initiatives
Overview
Ballot Initiatives
Approved by Voters
Ballot Initiatives
Defeated by Voters

Appendix A

Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4

Table 3.5

Table 4.1

3-1
3-1
3-7

4-1
4-1
4-3
4-12

State Transit

Program Contacts
Tables
Table 1.1
Table 1.2

2-98
2-102
2-105
2-107
2-108
2-110
2-114
2-116
2-118

A-1

State Funding of Public Transit 1-2
Federal and State Funding for
Public Transit
1-3
Major Sources for Overall Transit
Funding
3-2
Types of Expenditures for State
Transit Funding
3-3
Changes in State Transit Funding
Levels
3-6
Level of Investment Reported by
All States and DC, Ranked by Total
Funding
3-8
Level of Investment Reported by
All States and DC, Ranked by Per
Capital Funding
3-9
2004 Ballot Results, by Type of
Initiative
4-3

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

1.0 Introduction
„ Background
This report is the 25th compilation of information on state funding of public transportation.
The 2005 report was prepared under the auspices of the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the American Public Transit
Association (APTA). It was prepared by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Office of
Survey Programs.

„ Summary Observations
A review of state funding levels over the intervals displayed in Table 1.1 shows that,
compared to 1995, the total amount of funds currently programmed for public transit has
more than doubled (up $4.8 billion). In fact, of the 47 states who reported funding in both
1995 and 2005, 39 had increased funding levels ranging from $212,792 (New Hampshire)
to $1.1 billion (California).
Compared to 2000, funding levels in 2005 increased a total of $2 billion. In addition, of
the 45 states who reported data in 2000, 30 increased funds in 2005. Five states showed
no change in funding levels (these five provide no transit funding) and 10 states showed a
decline in funding ranging from $39,135 (Nebraska) to $298,170,310 (Georgia).
• Six of seven states that provided no funding for transit in 1990 (Arkansas, Idaho, New
Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming) reported a total of $16.6 million
allotted to transit in 2005.
• Four of eight states that provided no funding for transit in 2000 (Alaska, Arkansas,
New Mexico, and New Hampshire) reported a total of $65.7 million allotted for transit
in 2005.
• Compared to 1990, seven states (Delaware, California, Oklahoma, Washington, Kansas,
North Carolina, and Mississippi) increased funding levels ranging from 10 times to 25
times their 1990 level while Arizona’s and Alaska’s funding levels were 52 and 53 times
the funds allotted in 1990.
• Compared to 2000, ten states (Delaware, Idaho, Maryland, North Carolina, Minnesota,
Oregon, Maine, South Dakota, Montana, and Mississippi) increased their funds from 2
to 7 times their 2000 level while Arizona’s 2005 funding level was 61 times the funds
allotted in 2000.
Data displayed in Table 1.2 show that state funding for transit has exceeded federal
funding levels for each year contained in the table.
1-1

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Table 1.1

State Funding of Public Transit-1990, 1995, 2000, 2005

State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
DC
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTALS

Note:

1-2

1 Calendar

1990
$453,600
$1,128,607
$382,961
$400,000
$113,579,750
$0
$87,614,575
$7,406,200
$115,007,775
$23,214,100
$1,295,589
$350,000
$0
$266,813,600
$16,623,895
$5,367,893
$390,000
$468,098
$3,000,000
$1,949,042
$271,066,348
$357,508,623
$132,816,959
$38,071,015
$32,040
$0
$71,250
$1,500,000
$320,000
$1,166,756
$235,225,000
$0
$1,422,752,0001
$5,934,875
$0
$32,350,882
$259,042
$6,933,258
$425,666,677
$15,253,694
NR
$0
$9,860,000
$8,831,085
NR
$668,644
$73,555,000
$2,220,900
2
$1,261,903
$53,439,491
$0
$3,742,211,127 $3

1995

$0
$0
$445,000
$331,900
$340,162,248
$0
$113,241,041
NR
$123,051,000
$89,510,720
$1,892,582
$0
$0
$264,992,700
NR
$7,464,513
$1,000,000
$612,196
NR
$392,000
$349,848,000
$531,895,787
$124,400,599
$47,988,633
0
$1,495,000
$75,000
$1,529,843
$437,748
$12,208
$458,704,000
NR
$1,356,600,000
$22,138,279
$761,329
$29,232,523
$951,497
$44,689,000
$628,400,000
$19,121,259
$4,140,384
$300,000
$12,458,000
$17,200,000
$139,929
$860,917
$78,248,186
$6,434,900
$1,537,898
$77,321,415
$976,736
$4,760,994,970

2000

$0
$0
$329,096
$0
$1,344,778,819
$0
$163,266,135
$35,685,145
NR
$92,724,263
$306,393,067
$0
$136,000
$467,622,300
$29,201,270
$10,411,432
$6,000,000
NR
NR
$420,000
$273,843,580
$771,356,465
$187,197,690
$80,289,455
$115,185
$17,029,357
$75,000
$1,539,135
NR
$0
$509,237,000
$0
$1,926,571,085
$38,246,921
$1,665,933
$42,348,466
$3,530,125
$15,553,262
$731,800,000
$36,822,442
$4,234,189
$397,061
$22,291,000
$27,945,051
$0
NR
$163,959,344
$84,455,509
$1,395,489
$100,448,100
NR
$7,499,314,371

2005

$0
$59,850,000
$20,068,000
$2,800,000
$1,399,800,143
$0
$206,440,541
$72,600,000
$212,050,288
$149,738,231
$8,222,757
$0
$312,000
$445,600,000
$37,046,940
$10,140,000
$6,000,000
$1,400,000
$4,962,500
$1,555,000
$727,433,000
$1,197,137,541
$195,149,300
$254,527,000
$800,000
$6,600,000
$415,197
$1,500,000
$95,000
$225,000
$910,584,000
$2,830,000
$2,169,005,000
$111,724,897
$2,203,657
$18,300,000
$3,250,000
$26,140,529
$835,223,000
$34,847,617
$5,943,000
$1,891,229
$34,196,000
$29,741,067
$0
$6,266,976
$157,600,000
$30,423,000
$2,258,342
$109,438,341
$2,955,511
$9,517,290,604

year 1989 figures
2 $374.972 of this figure represents direct state operating assistance to public transit. $697,281 is provided by the
WV Dept. of Health & Human Services and the WV Commission on Aging and is used for the provision of
specialized services to the elderly and handicapped. $90,000 is used by the small urban and rural properties as
fare box revenue to offset operating expenses.

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Table 1.2
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
DC
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTALS

Federal and State Funding for Public Transit-1995, 2000, 2005
1995
Federal
State
$0
$16,902,560
$0
$4,841,362
$445,000
$41,261,418
$331,900
$8,488,925
$340,162,248
$649,601,617
$0
$29,280,952
$113,241,041
$72,346,978
NR
$11,593,982
$123,051,000
$170,047,436
$89,510,720
$149,531,205
$1,892,582
$83,000,868
$0
$22,001,003
$0
$4,025,973
$264,992,700
$294,583,255
NR
$37,208,727
$7,464,513
$21,846,970
$1,000,000
$10,962,945
$612,196
$19,134,537
NR
$48,047,184
$392,000
$7,318,204
$349,848,000
$198,965,485
$531,895,787
$166,754,794
$124,400,599
$85,840,495
$47,988,633
$39,476,237
$8,142,041
0
$1,495,000
$53,018,181
$75,000
$3,221,003
$1,529,843
$8,824,208
$437,748
$18,357,309
$12,208
$4,268,315
$458,704,000
$331,862,771
NR
$12,426,863
$787,777,442 $1,356,600,000
$22,138,279
$43,670,248
$761,329
$2,908,485
$29,232,523
$118,313,658
$951,497
$12,593,429
$44,689,000
$127,700,494
$628,400,000
$262,501,789
$19,121,259
$16,335,161
$13,171,783
$4,140,384
$300,000
$3,776,343
$12,458,000
$37,004,538
$17,200,000
$195,305,908
$139,929
$25,773,288
$860,917
$3,324,851
$78,248,186
$45,222,167
$6,434,900
$76,207,278
$1,537,898
$9,377,226
$77,321,415
$54,763,914
$976,736
$1,835,208
$4,470,747,013 $4,760,994,970

2000
Federal
State
$0
$49,114,988
$0
$40,378,506
$329,096
$14,709,692
$0
$48,283,188
$803,945,774 $1,344,778,819
$0
$88,173,455
$163,266,135
$97,120,786
$35,685,145
$11,081,572
NR
$81,882,945
$92,724,263
$200,817,015
$306,393,067
$142,249,540
$0
$35,239,372
$136,000
$5,082,659
$467,622,300
$360,527,833
$29,201,270
$62,917,864
$10,411,432
$26,916,964
$6,000,000
$20,870,702
$31,125,153
NR
$42,131,522
NR
$420,000
$5,557,356
$273,843,580
$123,984,265
$771,356,465
$246,495,785
$187,197,690
$100,549,339
$80,289,455
$106,819,233
$115,185
$14,673,609
$17,029,357
$107,250,001
$75,000
$4,654,640
$1,539,135
$11,222,741
$28,973,132
NR
$0
$9,587,773
$509,237,000
$383,154,150
$0
$29,447,445
$844,551,502 $1,926,571,085
$38,246,921
$55,259,602
$1,665,933
$4,615,183
$42,348,466
$132,460,261
$3,530,125
$20,282,810
$15,553,262
$52,338,618
$731,800,000
$297,215,171
$36,822,442
$15,620,075
$4,234,189
$29,052,501
$397,061
$4,746,558
$22,291,000
$38,010,482
$27,945,051
$296,982,717
$0
$80,950,767
$7,899,831
NR
$163,959,344
$104,760,752
$84,455,509
$149,744,731
$1,395,489
$29,773,943
$100,448,100
$65,748,459
NR
$2,307,708
$5,567,260,670 $7,499,314,371

2005
Federal
State
$54,094,510
$0
$38,432,436
$59,850,000
$153,565,011
$20,068,000
$26,317,868
$2,800,000
$1,153,279,693 $1,399,800,143
$147,594,783
$0
$111,299,136
$206,440,541
$10,655,120
$72,600,000
$133,606,754
$212,050,288
$259,272,931
$149,738,231
$123,128,967
$8,222,757
$51,633,878
$0
$12,117,956
$312,000
$561,650,912
$445,600,000
$68,719,898
$37,046,940
$32,386,921
$10,140,000
$23,070,245
$6,000,000
$43,005,382
$1,400,000
$69,084,959
$4,962,500
$11,004,925
$1,555,000
$228,507,998
$727,433,000
$246,684,969 $1,197,137,541
$124,405,148
$195,149,300
$116,311,774
$254,527,000
$18,616,577
$800,000
$75,963,242
$6,600,000
$9,706,192
$415,197
$18,687,677
$1,500,000
$60,710,520
$95,000
$9,091,892
$225,000
$453,937,547
$910,584,000
$19,137,435
$2,830,000
$1,105,387,901 $2,169,005,000
$119,070,747
$111,724,897
$8,144,188
$2,203,657
$167,400,743
$18,300,000
$46,463,304
$3,250,000
$93,860,159
$26,140,529
$393,976,710
$835,223,000
$24,521,694
$34,847,617
$30,499,933
$5,943,000
$6,926,646
$1,891,229
$65,656,363
$34,196,000
$310,692,211
$29,741,067
$59,018,290
$0
$8,052,386
$6,266,976
$136,095,292
$157,600,000
$241,576,943
$30,423,000
$15,825,633
$2,258,342
$69,407,542
$109,438,341
$3,105,721
$2,955,511
$7,371,365,662 $9,517,290,604

Note: Federal fund information provided by the Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration.

1-3

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

„ Methodology
Initial Round: Request for Updated Funding Information
The 2002 survey was conducted by the Transportation Cooperative Research Program of
the Transportation Research Board. Findings were published in Research Results Digest
#60. That survey effort established the format for both the data collection procedure and
the format of the final report for this year’s survey.
In December of 2005, an introductory letter that explained the information-gathering effort
for FY 2005, along with a copy of the information submitted by each state during the 2004
survey, was sent by FedEx to all 50 states and the District of Columbia. States were asked
to update the information provided during the 2004 effort and return the corrected sheets
by Federal Express.
About one week after the initial mailing of survey packets, each state was contacted by
phone to ensure that they had received the packet. Through telephone follow-ups,
eventually all states submitted their updated information and data collection was
terminated on March 31, 2006. A draft report of results was submitted to AASHTO on
April 12th, 2006 and was published by AASHTO in May 2006.
The following basic information was solicited from each state:
•

Sources of funds. What state taxes or revenues are used to support transit?

•

Nature of programs. What is the focus of discrete funding programs?

•

Amounts of funding. What amounts are being contributed from which sources?

•

Eligible uses of funds. For what purposes are funds provided?

•

Types of Funding. What limitations are placed on the funds for example, limited to
capitol expenditures, operating expenditures, planning or other misc. activities.

•

Allocation mechanisms. What factors are used in allocating funds to what recipients?

1-4

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

„ Report Contents and Organization
The bulk of this report presents major details of current funding programs in FY 2005 for
each state using the identical two-page diagram and bullet point format developed in the
2002 study. The summary highlights are presented on two levels based on data availability for different respondents. Historical comparisons across factors such as total
funding, per capita funding, fund eligible uses, fund sources, and allocation mechanisms
are also presented. In addition to the state funding summaries, this report also contains
profiles of transit-related ballot initiatives from 2005, tracking results at the state and local
level.
This report is organized into four sections. Following this introductory section, Section 2.0
contains state transit program details for all states using a two-page diagram and text
format, including funding sources and amounts, allocation mechanisms, and program
descriptions. Section 3.0 presents highlights from reported information for all 50 states
and the District of Columbia. Section 4.0 presents a summary of results from a subset of
recent state and local ballot initiatives aimed to increase funding for transit.

1-5

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

2.0 State Transit Program Details

(Page intentionally left blank.)

NOTE: Per capita costs for each state were calculated using the US
Census State Population Data (NST-EST2005-01) for July 1, 2005, which
was released in December 2005.

2-1

2-2

Programs

NO STATE FUNDING PROVIDED
FOR TRANSIT IN FY 2005.

Source

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Alabama State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics
(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Alabama State Transit Funding: Major Features
The state does not provide funding for transit.

2-3

2-4

Alaska Mental
Health Trust Authority

General Funds

Source

Total

Transit purchase of rides,
vehicles, planning
for new system

Alaska Marine
Highway (Ferry
Program)

Programs

$59,850,000

$650,000

$4,200,000
$55,000,000

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

X

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other
X

X
X

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

X

Specify:

Discretionary X
Formula-based
Legislated
X
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Alaska State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics
(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Alaska State Transit Funding: Major Features
The State of Alaska currently has eight public transit systems and three additional systems
that will implement services within the next three years. Much of Alaska is landlocked
and only accessible by boat and small plane. Many of these small communities are located
on islands. Consequently, the Alaska Marine Highway system is an additional “public
transit” system and is the lifeline to medical, shopping, cultural and social activities for
many Alaskans.
Due to the unique geography, large land mass, and extreme climate conditions of Alaska,
the cost of transit infrastructure is high. Funding based on population alone does not meet
the needs of this state. We would like to see increased funding from all funding sources,
comparable to FTA 5311, resulting from SAFETEA-LU.

2-5

2-6

Planning

Operating,
Capital, and
Planning

State General Fund

Local Transportation
Assistance Fund II
(LTAF II)

Total

Capital Assistance

Programs

STP Flexible Funds

Source

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning X
Other
X

$68,000

$20,068,000

Capital
X
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
X
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

$6,500,000

$13,500,000

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
X
Dedicated
Other

Salaries/FTA match

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
X
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Arizona State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

For the purpose of providing public or
special needs transportation. Distributed
only to cities, towns, and counties.

Can be used by transit providers to
match federal 5313 funds.

ADOT distributes STP flexible funds to
rural and urban transit providers. Fund
expenditures subject to ADOT approval.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Arizona State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

State transit funding for FY 2005 totaled slightly more than $20 million.

(Arizona’s fiscal year is July to June.)

2-7

2-8

Rental Car Tax
($2.85 million)

Source

Total

5310 Capital Grants

Rural systems

Urban systems

Programs

Capital
X
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

$900,000

$2,800,000

Capital
Operating
Both
X
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
X
Planning
Other

$1,100,000

$800,000

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Arkansas State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Capital grants for 5310 elderly and
disabled programs

Capital match and operating assistance
for rural systems.

Capital match and operating assistance
for urban systems.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Arkansas State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding in FY 2005 was $2.8 million or about $1.01 per capita.

•

Transit funding comes from a dedicated source generated by a tax on rental cars.
This funding began in FY 2002 and remained constant in FY 2005.

•

The funds are used both for capital match and operating assistance for urban and
rural transit systems and for expanding Arkansas’s 5310 capital grant program.

(Arkansas’ fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-9

2-10

State Transportation
Improvement
Program

Proposition 116
Program

State Highway Account
(Fuel Users Tax and
Weight Fees)

Clean Air and
Transportation Improvement
Act (Bond Funds)

$1,193,194

$10,254,000

$0

TOTAL $1,399,800,143

Traffic Congestion
Relief Program

$117,365,000

State Transit
Assistance Fund

$2,879,000

$1,268,108,949

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Local Transportation
Fund

Programs

Traffic Congestion
Relief Fund

Public Transportation
Account (Gas & Diesel
Sales Tax)

1/4 cent of 7.25%
retail sales tax

Source

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

X

X

X

X

X

X

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

X

X

X

X

X

X

Type of Funding
(Check box)

California State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Discretionary grants to local
transportation agencies and jurisdictions
for rail and fixed guide way projects.
Project approval by California
Transportation Commission.

Of the amount available for programming,
75% is allocated to counties by
population and 25% is retained by the
State for interregional improvements.

Eligible capital projects identified in the
Governor's FY 2000-2001 budget to
ease congestion and enhance
connectivity between modes.

Allocated to support operation of waterborne ferry services in the Bay Area.

Allocated to operators by regional
planning agencies based on population,
prior year fares and local revenues.
Supports local transit.

Collected by state-returned to county of
origin. Apportioned by population
within counties. Supports local transit.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

California State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding increased from approximately $1.3 billion in FY 2003-04
to approximately $1.4 billion in FY 2004-05, translating to approximately $38.74 in
per capita funding.

•

The State of California economy improved in FY 2004-05 providing additional
revenues for local transportation needs but the economic recovery has yet to
provide similar funding increases for State programs. Most notably, funding for
transit projects programmed in the Traffic Congestion Relief Program and in the
State Transportation Improvement Program was again transferred to other critical
and essential State functions.

•

State funding supports the full spectrum of transit needs – capital, operations and
planning.

•

The primary source of state transit funding continues to be revenues from the ¼
cent of the 7-¼ percent retail sales tax flowing through the “Local Transportation
Fund” established by the Transportation Development Act (TDA). Revenues are
collected by the State and returned to each county according to the amount that
was collected in that county (as a result, they are often characterized as “local”
rather than state funds).

•

State funding from gasoline and diesel sales taxes also flow to transit through the
“State Transit Assistance Fund/Public Transportation Account.”

•

The current state transit program structure represents a consolidation and
simplification of accounts and programs that support transit.

(California’s 2005 fiscal year is July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005)

2-11

2-12

Programs

NO STATE FUNDING PROVIDED
FOR TRANSIT IN FY 2005.

Source

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Colorado State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics
(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Colorado State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Transit projects are funded solely with federal and local dollars.

•

A transportation funding bill was passed during the 2002 legislative session that
will provide state funding for future transit-related purposes. The bill sets aside
10 percent of certain general fund transportation funds for strategic, transit-related
purposes. These funds are derived by formula from excess state sales tax
revenues. It is the responsibility of CDOT to define what constitutes “transitrelated purposes” and the process for allocating funding. Because of the recent
economic downturn, it is anticipated that excess tax revenues will not be available
until at least 2007.

(Colorado’s fiscal year is July to June)

2-13

2-14

DMV Sales Tax
$69.7 million

Oil Company Tax
$13.0 million

Interest Income
$32.7 million

License & Permit Fees
$155.1 million

Motor Vehicle Receipts
$233.9 million

$483.8 million

Motor Fuel Tax

Special Transportation
Fund ($988.2 million)

Source

Other Budgeted
Expenses
$92.9 million

DOT Budgeted
Expenses
$362.5 million

DMV Budgeted
Expenses
$49.5 million

Debt Service

$13,861,310

$82,607,056

$75,972,175

$34,000,000

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
X
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Discretionary X
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other
Specify:

Discretionary X
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other
Specify:

Specify:

Discretionary X
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary X
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Transit Funds Eligible Uses Type of Funding
(FY 2005)
(Check box)
(Check box)

TOTAL $206,440,541

ADA
Dial-a-Ride
Dialysis

Bus
Operations

Rail
Operations

Capital Project
Management Plan
(Bonded)

Programs

Connecticut State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Support for mandated ADA and local
Dial-a-Ride services.

Support for urban, rural, and
commuter express bus operations.

Support for commuter rail service

Allocated based on priorities negotiated
by ConnDOT and Transit Districts.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Connecticut State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding increased from $200.1 million in FY 2004 to 206.4
million in FY 2005. This translates to a rise in per capita state funding from $57.13
to $58.81.

•

The state funds virtually all transit in Connecticut. Minimal financial support for
transit is provided by local governments, mostly for localized paratransit services.

•

State operating support for bus services is provided on a deficit basis, driven by
historic shares but subject to funding limitations in the state’s biennial budget. The
bus transit capital funding process involves pooling state and federally
apportioned funds. Annual capital funding commitments are then determined
through collaboration between the state and local transit districts.

•

The state, through contractual arrangements, operates services in eight service
areas under the title of CT Transit. CT Transit services account for approximately
70 percent of transit services and 80 percent of transit ridership statewide.

•

Connecticut DOT, through its Office of Transit and Ridesharing, administers a
growing number of programs on a statewide basis, including ridesharing and jobs
access.

•

A recent bus transit governance, management, and finance study explored
directions for fundamentally altering current governance, management, and
financing practices for transit.

(Connecticut’s fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-15

2-16

$16,300,000

$56,300,000

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Total $72,600,000

Capital Program

Rail Service
Paratransit
Fixed Route

Programs

NOTE: On capital side, state match to Federal funding is included above.
Total capital budget was $27.2 million.

Vehicle Registration
Fees

Gas Tax

Bridge Tolls

State Transit Fund

Source

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

X

X

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
X
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
X
Dedicated
Other

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Delaware State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Includes:
13.4% on rail preservation and
enhancement
43.6% on vehicle replacement and
expansion amenities
43.0% on facility preservation,
enhancement, and expansion

Operating expenditures on state-wide
public transit system. Approved by
State Legislature

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Delaware State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding increased from $72.0 million in FY 2004 to $72.6 million
in FY 2005. This translates to a change in per capita state funding from
approximately $86.70 to $86.07.

•

All public transit services are provided by the Delaware Transit Corporation, a
division of the Delaware DOT.

•

All services and programs are primarily funded through a single state trust fund,
whose sources are bridge tolls, a portion of the gas tax, and vehicle registration
fees. Additional revenue sources include passenger revenue and federal subsidy
and grants.

•

State funding provides 80 percent of the operating costs of the Delaware Transit
Corporation.

(Delaware’s fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-17

2-18

Total

$212,050,288

$40,700,000

$16,573

Section 5313(b)
Statewide Transit
Planning Program

Capital Subsidy to
WMATA

$30,715

$4,670,000

$166,633,000

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Section 5303
Metropolitan Transit
Planning Program

School Transit
Subsidy to
WMATA

Operating Subsidy
to WMATA

Programs

NOTE: WMATA = Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

State
Bonds
Funding

General
Revenue
Funds

Source

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

X

X

X

X

X

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Type of Funding
(Check box)

District of Columbia Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

WMATA Capital Program.

DC matching financial assistance for
statewide transit planning activities.

DC matching financial assistance to the
Metropolitan Planning Organization.

The DC Omnibus Budget Support Act of
1995 authorizes the payment of 50% of the
base fare as subsidy for the transportation of
District students to and from school and
related activities.

Includes $86.77 million allocated to Metrobus,
$55.24 million to Metrorail, $11.81 million
to Metro Access and $10.3 million to debt
services.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

District of Columbia Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total District funding for transit in FY 2005 was approximately $212 million or
about $385.18 per capita. The bulk of these funds are dedicated to operating and
capital subsidies for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
(WMATA).1

•

The District of Columbia uniquely acts as both a state and local funding source.

(DC’s fiscal year is from October to September.)

1

The District of Columbia per capita figure is artificially high. WMATA extends well beyond the
District boundaries into Maryland and Virginia and, therefore, serves a population much larger than
that of the District. Per capita figure is calculated only for District investment per District resident
population.

2-19

2-20

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

*Includes aviation, rail, transit
seaports, and intermodal. Transit
share is approximately 4%.

Rental Car
Surcharge-$91 million

Aviation Fuel Tax
$48 million

Vehicle Registrations
$699 million

SUBTOTAL

$132,064,748

$54,000,000

$2,406,436

Match Section 5303
Section 5311
Section 5310
Section 5311(f)

State New Starts

$1,075,000

$4,371,906

Park and
Ride
Program

Commuter
Assistance
Program

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

X

X

X

X

X

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

X

X

X

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

X

X
X
X

X

X

X

X

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Fuel Taxes
$1,498 million

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

$7,600,000

$4,395,000

Public Transit
Service
Development Program

Transit
Corridor
Program

$58,216,406

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

*State Transit
Block Grant

Programs

public transportation*

Florida Transportation
Trust Fund--15% minimum for

Source

Florida State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Grants for up to 1/2 non-Federal share of capital, reserved
as match to Transit New Starts Projects.

Grants for up to 1/2 non-Federal share capital. Includes
legislatively mandated dollar for dollar match to Federal
Section 5311(f) Intercity Bus Funds which may be used
for operating expenses.

Project grants.

Grants for TMA and ride-sharing
support for up to 1/2 TMA operating
costs.

Grants for capital or operating in
state-designated corridors.

Grants for 2-3 year demonstration
projects (local and state) for operations,
maintenance, marketing, and technology.

FTA Section 5307 recipients. Up to 1/2 non-Federal
share of capital expenses and 1/2 eligible operating
expenses, not to exceed local contributions.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

TOTAL

Transportation
Disadvantaged Trust
Fund
(Coordinated
Transportation)

SUBTOTAL
(from previous page)

Programs

$149,738,231

$17,673,483

$132,064,748

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

NOTE:
TMA=Transportation Management Agency
* Block Grant Formula based on 1/3 population, 1/3 ridership, 1/3 revenue miles.

*Includes aviation, rail, transit
seaports, and intermodal. Transit
share is approximately 4%.

Rental Car
Surcharge-$91 million

Aviation Fuel Tax
$48 million

Vehicle Registrations
$699 million

Fuel Taxes
$1,498 million

public transportation*

Florida Transportation
Trust Fund--15% minimum for

Source

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other
X

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

X
X
X

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Florida State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics
(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

2-21

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Florida State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding increased from $96.5 million in FY 2004 to $149.7
million in FY 2005 for a per capita cost of $8.42.

•

State funding supports the full spectrum of transit needs—capital, operations, and
planning.

•

The Florida Legislature created the State New Starts program, funded with
general revenues, to provide up to ½ of the nonfederal share of transit new starts
projects.

•

By state law, a minimum of 15% of state transportation trust fund dollars must be
spent for public transportation, which includes transit, rail, aviation, seaports and
intermodal facilities. Transit makes up 4% of state transportation expenditures.

•

Florida law requires the Department of Transportation to match FTA Section
5311(f) Intercity Bus Funds on a dollar for dollar basis.

(Florida’s fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-22

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)

2-23

2-24

State General Funds

Source

$8,222,757

$0

Intercity
Bus
Program

TOTAL

$189,937

Planning
Support

$0

$446,440

Rural
Capital
Program

Enhancement
Budget

$7,586,380

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Urban
Capital
Program

Programs

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

X

X

X

X

X

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

X

X

X

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other
X
Specify: Federal
and private funds

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Georgia State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Federal and private sector funds-no state fundssupport vehicle purchases.

Supports MPO planning in 15 MPOs with a
minimum allocation based on
population factors. Balances allocated at
DOT's discretion.

Supports 1/2 non-Federal share (10%) of
capital projects in 100 small urban and
rural areas based on a Rural TIP.

Supports 1/2 non-Federal share (10%) of
priority capital projects in urbanized areas as a
"continuation" or baseline budget, based on
TIPs. Funds allocated directly by Federal
formula. Excess allocated by state formula
based on ridership, fare box recovery, revenue
vehicle miles, and trips per capita.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Georgia State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding in FY 2005 was about $8.2 million or $0.91 per capita.

•

The majority of the state transit funding budget came from two sources: the
Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program ($8.2 million) and from a special
“enhancement” request made from the state legislature by Metropolitan Atlanta
Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) for $3.6 million

•

The state provides capital and planning funds, but no transit operating support.

•

State funding for the MARTA is included within the urban capital program.

•

All rural providers are local or county governments, some of whom contract with
other providers for service. Georgia DOT District Office representatives assist
rural areas in service planning and capital budgeting.

•

Through the Georgia Transit Association (GTA), transit agencies are currently
developing proposals for alternative transportation revenue sources for capital
and operating assistance.

(Georgia’s fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-25

2-26

Programs

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

HAWAII HAS NO CONTINUOUS SOURCE
OF STATE FUNDING FOR TRANSIT.

Source

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Hawaii State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics
(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Hawaii State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

The state of Hawaii has delegated responsibility for transit funding to the four county
agencies of Kauai, Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii.

•

The state of Hawaii does sometimes provide additional funds for transit.

2-27

2-28

Non-urbanized and
Seniors and Persons
with Disabilities

Miscellaneous Revenue

Total

Programs

Source

$312,000

$312,000

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)
Capital
X
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary X
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Idaho State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Discretionary allocation for vehicle
purchase. First, Federal funds are
allocated by formula, state funds are
used to complete 80% of vehicle costs,
then local dollars provide a 20% match.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Idaho State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding in FY 2005 was $312,000 or $0.22 per capita.

•

State transit funds are taken entirely from Idaho Transportation Department’s
miscellaneous revenues. Gas tax funds are restricted to road spending by the state
constitution, and the legislature has not allowed general fund monies to be
appropriated for transit.

•

Local matches are generally funded by property taxes or donations.

(Idaho’s fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-29

2-30

$445,600,000

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Total $445,600,000

Operating
Assistance
Program

Programs

NOTE: RTA = Regional Transportation Authority

General Revenue
Funds
(GRF)

Source
Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other
X

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based X
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Illinois State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Northeast Illinois (RTA system) receives
General Revenue Funds equal to 25% of the
RTA sales tax collected in northeast Illinois.
The Metro-East system in southwest Illinois
receives GRF equal to 80% of 2/32 of the
sales tax collected in the region. Other eligible
downstate areas receive GRF equal to 80% of
3/32 of the sales tax collected in those areas
up to 55% of their operating budget in
FY 2005.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Illinois State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding in FY 2005 is $445.6 million or $34.91 per capita.

•

Operating assistance is funded from general revenue funds and includes a fare
reimbursement program, debt service on capital bonds, and general operating
assistance. Systems can receive operating assistance for providing reduced fare to
the elderly and persons with disabilities. The amount available each year is
determined through the legislative process.

•

General fund operating assistance for downstate transit operators (outside the
Metro East area) cannot exceed 55 percent of any recipient’s operating budget. The
Northeastern Illinois Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) area has a
minimum fare box recovery rate of 50 percent.

•

State Reduced Fare Program: These funds reimburse transit systems for the loss in
revenue incurred by providing reduced fares to students, elderly persons and
persons with disabilities. FY 2005 $38.4 million

(Illinois’ fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-31

2-32

Sales and Use Tax
(.775% to transit)

Source

Total

Commuter Rail
Service
Fund (.14%)

Public Mass
Transportation
Fund (.635%)

Programs

$37,046,940

$7,046,940

$30,000,000

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other
X

Capital
Operating
Both
X
Planning
Other

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
X
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based X
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Indiana State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Funding for rail service between South
Bend and Chicago. Used for maintenance,
improvements, and operation of commuter
rail service.

Allotted based on total boardings, total
vehicle miles of travel, and amount of
local-derived income.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Indiana State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

State transit funding increased from $36.2 million in FY 2004 to $37 million in
FY 2005. This translates to an increase in per capita state funding from $5.80 to
$5.91.

•

Operating and capital funds for transit are administered through the public mass
transportation fund. The state sales and use tax is applied to this fund.

•

The Indiana Department of Transportation administers the section 5303, 5310,
5311, and 5313 grant programs. Indiana has received over $10.5 million in grant
awards from these programs in FY 2005.

•

Regional transportation authorities have been established in northwest and central
Indiana. The Regional Development Authority, representing Lake and Porter
counties, includes a Regional Bus Authority charged with developing regional bus
service. In central Indiana, the Central Indiana Regional Transportation Authority
has been created for the Indianapolis metro area encompassing nine counties.

(Indiana’s fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-33

2-34

Formula

$300,000 ** Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other
X

Discretionary
Formula-based X
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

$9,840,000 * Capital
Operating
Both
X
Planning
Other

Specify:

Discretionary X
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

TOTAL $10,140,000

(fixed)

Special
Projects

(based on receipts
minus diversions)

Programs

($10.8 million)

State
Transit
Assistance

* Based on receipts minus diversions
**Fixed

4% of Use Tax
on Sale of
Motor Vehicles

Source

Iowa State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Statewide projects for marketing,
training, advanced technologies,
etc.

Support of public transit operations
and capital. Split between regional
systems and urban systems based on
revenue miles (about 50/50). Within
peer groups, distribution 50% based
on locally derived income (LDI),
25% based on ridership, and 25%
on revenue miles.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Iowa State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding in FY 2005 was $10.1 million or about $3.42 per capita.

•

State legislation allocates 1/20 of the first $0.04 of the use tax on the sale of motor
vehicles and accessory equipment to the support of public transit. Beginning with
July 2004 collections, these monies will once again be placed in a separate
dedicated fund as opposed to being run through the state’s general fund, as
happened from 1993 to 2004.

•

The removal of the transit funding from the states General Fund ended the recent
practice of Legislative diversions of the transit funds to other General Fund
programs. Because the diversions were based on the year of tax collection, verses
payment to transit systems, approximately $700,000 were still diverted during the
first three months of state fiscal 2005.

•

Of the total amount available for transit support in any given year, $300,000 are
initially reserved for “special projects” to enhance the transit program, while the
rest of the funds are distributed on the basis of a performance-based formula to
the state’s 19 urban and 16 regional transit systems to be used at the discretion of
the local transit policy board for projects supporting public transit.

•

Special projects are generally statewide in scope and include such items as a
statewide transit awareness campaign, a fellowship program for transit systems in
communities with populations greater than 50,000 (similar to what is made
available to rural systems using the FTA Rural Transit Assistance Program
[RTAP]), and projects for the introduction of advanced technologies. Of the setaside special projects, any part not needed for such purposes can be distributed to
the transit systems via the formula.

•

Iowa’s distribution formula makes an initial split in funding between the state’s
urban transit systems and the multi-county regional transit systems. This is based
on total revenue miles provided by each peer group. Then within each peer group,
each system receives an allocation of state transit assistance, which is based
50 percent on the amount of locally determined income generated in the previous
year in comparison with peers, 25 percent on ridership efficiencies in comparison
with peers, and 25 percent on revenue miles efficiencies in comparison with peers.

•

Formula funds are distributed to transit systems monthly upon receipt by DOT.

(Iowa’s fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-35

2-36

State Highway
Fund
($6 million allocated
to transit)

Source

Total

$1,330,000

Urban
Capital
Assistance

$6,000,000

$860,000

$2,210,000

Urban
Operating
Assistance

Rural
Capital
Assistance

$1,600,000

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Rural
Operating
Assistance

Programs

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

X

X

X

X

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

X

X

X

X

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Kansas State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Discretionary allocation based on
identified needs.

Discretionary allocation based on
identified needs.

Discretionary allocation based on
identified needs.

Discretionary allocation based on
identified needs.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Kansas State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding in FY 2005 was $6.0 million or $2.19 per capita. The
state has programmed $6.0 million per fiscal year through FY 2009.

•

The source of the funds is the state Highway Fund, which is divided between
rural (41 percent) and urban (59 percent) transit operators and is used for
operating and capital needs.

•

The selection process for funding begins by needs requests, which are compiled by
various transit operators. These needs requests are then screened by 15
coordinated transit districts (CTDs), which view the requests in light of district
wide needs. The recommendations made by the CTDs are then forwarded to the
state DOT transit section, which notifies the final fund recipients.

(Kansas’ fiscal year is from June to July.)

2-37

2-38

State
General
Funds
($1.4 million)

Source

$1,400,000

$240,000

Small
Urban
Capital

Total

$1,000,000

$160,000

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Rural Capital
and
Discretionary

Elderly and
Disabled
Care

Programs

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

X

X

X

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

X

X

X

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Kentucky State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Formula match of up to 10% of
capital projects.

Formula match of up to 10% of
capital projects.

Formula match of up to 10% of
capital projects.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Kentucky State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding in FY 2005 was $1.4 million or about $0.34 per capita.

•

The state uses state general funds to match up to one-half of the local shares of
capital projects. While state funds are also eligible for operating costs, no state
funds have been appropriated for this purpose.

•

Prioritization of funds occurs in the following order: elderly and disabled
program, rural program, small urban systems, and large urban areas.

•

Generally, the state requests funding for about 150 elderly and disabled program
vehicles and is provided funding for approximately 40. Vehicle replacement
criteria such as mileage, age, clientele, ridership, and other vehicle factors are used
to prioritize funds. Funds are not available for service expansion, only system
preservation (i.e., replacement of aging vehicles).

(Kentucky’s fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-39

2-40

Parish
Transportation
Trust funds
Mass Transit Acct.

Source

Total

All 5307 Programs

All eligible 5311
(non-urban)
programs

Programs

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

$4,838,437

$4,962,500

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

X
X
X

X

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

$124,063

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Louisiana State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Funds may be spent on any transitrelated activity.

Funds for 5311 Capital projects.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Louisiana State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding for FY 2005 was $4,962,500 or $1.10 per capita.

•

A total of $4,838,437 was allocated to 12 urban and small urban transit providers
in accordance with a formula established in the Louisiana Legislature.

•

$124,063 was allocated to fund 5311 capital projects for rural transit providers.

(Louisiana’s fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-41

2-42

* Bonds usually issued on a biannual basis.

Passenger
Related
Improvements

*General
Fund
Bonds

Total

Public
Transportation
Fund

DOT

Programs

Non-Highway
Funds

Source

$1,555,000

$1,050,000

$505,000

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

X

X

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

X

X

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Maine State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Transit bus and passenger ferry
replacement, matching Federal grants, and
state investment in capital for transit to
reduce seasonal congestion.

Supports local transit operations,
matching federal transit grants.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Maine State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state funding in FY 2005 was $505,000 for operating and a bond for capital
match has been approved for $1,050,000 or $1.18 per capita.

•

The constitutional barrier to using state highway tax dollars for nonhighway
purposes limits funding for transit. However, the Transit Bonus Program (which
is capped at 1 percent of the State Highway Tax), gives towns a bonus in their
local roads accounts if they increase their contributions to transit.

(Maine’s fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-43

2-44

Statewide
Grant
Program

$2,357,000

ADA
Services

SUB-TOTAL $722,326,000

$4,306,000

$2,492,000

Statewide Special
Transportation
Assistance Prg.

Small
Urban
Program

Large Urban
$236,008,000
Program (DC/MD
Suburban Area)

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
X
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
X
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
X
Planning
Other

Specify:

Discretionary X
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based X
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary X
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based X
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary X
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Transit Funds Eligible Uses Type of Funding
(FY 2005)
(Check box)
(Check box)

Large Urban Area $477,163,000
Program
(Baltimore Area)

Programs

Transportation
Trust
Fund

CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE

Bond Proceeds
(0%)

(9.5%)

Corporate Income
Taxes

Motor Vehicle Fees
(23.3%)

Motor Vehicle
Excise Taxes
(32.8%)

Motor Fuel Taxes
(34.4%)

Source

Maryland State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Distribution based on need to
counties or human services
organizations.

Allocates 60% of funds evenly to
providers; 40% of distribution based
on elderly/disabled population to local
jurisdictions.

25% operating assistance match for
5307 programs.
10% capital assistance match for 5307.

Formula-based Maryland share of
Washington Metro Area Transit
Authority (WMATA) needs and the
suburban Washington transit systems.

Discretionary funding: $366 million for
operating, $111.2 million for capital.
Funds MD Transit Admin. Services in
Baltimore Metro Area and Baltimore/
Washington commuter operating
expenses.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE

Source

$3,953,000

Rural
Transit
Program

TOTAL $727,433,000

$1,154,000

Capital
Operating
Both
X
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other

Specify:

Discretionary X
Formula-based X
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary X
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Transit Funds Eligible Uses Type of Funding
(FY 2005)
(Check box)
(Check box)

Job
Access

Programs

Maryland State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics (continued)

Funding for operating expenditures:
Base program is a formula of 90% on
past needs and current service, and
10% on rural population. New service
is based on need and available funding.

Matches FTA grant for low income
access to jobs.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

2-45

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Maryland State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding was $727.4 million in State Fiscal Year 2005. This
equates to $129.89 in per capita expenditures.

•

Funding to support all modal expenditures flows through the Transportation
Trust Fund. The state legislature allocates funding to each modal administration
based on budget requests.

•

For the combined bus, Metro subway and light rail systems in Baltimore, the
Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) is required by statute to recover
40 percent of its transit operating expense through fares, with a goal of 50-percent
recovery. For the MARC commuter trains, the MTA is required by statute to
recover 50 percent of its transit operating expenses.

(Maryland State Fiscal Year 2005 began on July 1, 2004 and ended on June 30, 2005.)

2-46

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)

2-47

2-48

RTA = Regional Transit Authority
MBTA = Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

$21,680,041

TOTAL $1,197,137,541

Capital assistance
to MBTA for
specific project

State
Infrastructure
Fund

$254,718,549

$137,732,280

Operating assistance
for the MBTA

Capital assistance
through MBTA
guaranteed bonds

$704,620,528

$7,931,208

$20,272,297

$50,182,638

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Operating assistance
for the MBTA

Capital assistance
for 15 Regional
Transit Authorities
(other than the MBTA)

Operating assistance
for 15 Regional
Transit Authorities
(other than the MBTA)

Operating assistance
for 15 Regional
Transit Authorities
(other than the MBTA)

Programs

MBTA Revenue Bonds

Local Assessments

Sales
Tax
Revenue

100% Highway Fund

Local
Assessments

20% Highway Fund

80% General Fund

Source

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

X

X

X

X

X

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Massachusetts State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

State share of the Dorchester Branch
Rehabilitation Project.

Used to provide the local match ($23.1m)
for MBTA Federally-funded projects and
fund capital needs ($231.6m) that
exceed Federal funding availability.

175 municipalities within MBTA's
district pay an annual assessment for the
reimbursement of operating expenditures.

Dedicated revenue stream for the MBTA
which equals 20% of the existing statewide
5% sales tax.

Federal funds pay for 80% of the project
costs and State funds pay for 20%; except
for rural transit authorities which do not
receive Federal capital formula funds and
the State pays 100%.

231 municipalities pay an annual
assessment for the reimbursement of the
next operating deficit.

The Commonwealth reimburses the 15 RTAs
at least 50% of their net operating deficit and
up to 75%. The local communities reimburse
at least 25% and up to 50% of the net
operating deficit.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Massachusetts State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding for FY 2005 was $1,197,137,541 or about $187 per capita.

•

Transit funding comes from a variety of sources including the general fund,
highway fund, local assessments, sales tax revenue, MBTA Revenue Bonds, and
the State Infrastructure Fund.

(Massachusetts fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-49

2-50

Michigan
Transportation
Fund

of new (FY 97) gas tax revenue
and costs of collection and certain
other disbursements.

10% of balance after deduction

Comprehensive
Transportation
Fund

Capital
X
Operating X
Both
Planning X
Other

Capital
X
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other

$16,294,200

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other

$17,175,100

$161,680,000

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
X
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
X
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based X
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Transit Funds Eligible Uses Type of Funding
(FY 2005)
(Check box)
(Check box)

TOTAL $195,149,300

Intercity
Passenger and
Freight**

Public
Transportation
Development

Local Transit
Operating
Assistance

Programs

* Reduced in FY 2004 and 2005
**Certain payments (e.g. loan repayments, fees, etc) are deposited in the bus equipment fund, rail freight
fund, or rail infrastructure loan fund for use in those programs.

Vehicle Registration
Revenue

Gas tax revenue
$.19/gallon

Miscellaneous
Revenue and
Interest

Not less than 6%
of 4%* sales tax on
automotive-related
items

Source

Michigan State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Amtrak, intercity bus, rail freight and
marine capital programs. Minimum
distribution (10% of total) set in
law.

Match for Federal capital grants (bus/
facilities/planning); specialized service
and municipal credits (distribution
amount set in state law); and other
transit programs.

Allocated to local transit agencies.
Eligible operating expenditure caps:
Urban (100,000+) - up to 50%
Non-urban/small urban - up to 60%

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Michigan State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding in FY 2005 is $195,149,300. This translates to a per
capita funding level of approximately $19.28.

•

Michigan provides some level of public transportation in all 83 counties.

•

A total of 52 of 78 public transit agencies are locally supported by property tax
millages, with the remainder supported by local general funds.

•

The 104 specialized service providers transported 1.53 million passengers
statewide in FY 2004. In FY 2005, it’s anticipated that the 102 specialized service
providers will transport 1.47 million passengers.

•

The Rideshare Program provides limited staff support for 11 local Rideshare
Offices that organize, demonstrate, and promote ridesharing activities. Eight of
the offices receive federal funds to support the program while three of the offices
operate on local funding only. In addition, the MichiVan Program provides fleet
management to 146 commuter vanpool groups.

•

The marine program supports three ferry services in the Eastern Upper Peninsula,
which carried 537,070 vehicles and 852,539 passengers. The other marine program
in Michigan provides service from Charlevoix to Beaver Island, which carried
6,410 vehicles, and 41,915 passengers.

•

The state supports five intercity routes, which carried 85,223 passengers in FY
2005. This was a 6.4% increase from the previous year.

•

There are 201 regular route and charter carriers licensed in Michigan and 2, 979
buses are registered to operate.

(Michigan’s fiscal year is from October to September.)

2-51

2-52

Metropolitan
Council-Twin
Cities Metro Area

Mn/DOT
Greater
Minnesota

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

$3,900,000

TOTAL $238,277,000

Hiawatha LRT
Operations

$52,273,000

$119,699,000

Metro Area
Transit
Fund

Metro Area Transit
operating
assistance

$37,500,000

$7,947,000

Commuter Rail
(State Bonds)

GM
Transit
Fund

$16,958,000

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
X
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
X
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
X
Planning
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
X
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
X
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
X
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
X
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
X
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
X
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Transit Funds Eligible Uses Type of Funding
(FY 2005)
(Check box)
(Check box)

GM transit
operating & capital
assistance

Programs

*Minnesota's 2003 Legislature statutorily appropriated
21.5% of annual MVST collections for Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area transit operations and 1.43% for
Greater Minnesota transit operations. In FY 2008
percentages revert back to 20.5% and 1.25% respectively.

Motor Vehicle
Sales Tax
(MVST)*

General Fund

Source

Minnesota State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Northstar Corridor Commuter Rail
Project

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Metropolitan
Council-Twin
Cities Metro Area

Mn/DOT
Greater
Minnesota

$16,250,000

TOTAL $254,527,000

Transitways
(State Bonds)

$238,277,000

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

See previous page

SUBTOTAL
(from previous page)

Programs

*Minnesota's 2003 Legislature statutorily appropriated
21.5% of annual MVST collections for Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area transit operations and 1.43% for
Greater Minnesota transit operations. In FY 2008
percentages revert back to 20.5% and 1.25% respectively.

Motor Vehicle
Sales Tax
(MVST)*

General Fund

Source

Capital
X
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
X
Dedicated
Other

Eligible Uses Type of Funding
(Check box)
(Check box)

Minnesota State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Funds for construction of the Cedar
BRT and planning/design for Central,
Red Rock, and Rush Line Corridors

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

2-53

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Minnesota State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding rose from $208.2 million in FY 2000 to $254.5 million in
FY 2005. This translates to a per capita cost of $49.59.

•

MnDOT receives and distributes funding for public transit systems outside the
seven-county metropolitan area. The Metropolitan Council MPO receives and
distributes funding for the Minneapolis–St. Paul metro area.

•

In the metropolitan 7-county region property tax replacement aid is also allocated
directly to 13 communities that have opted out of the regional transit system. On
the previous page, these pass-throughs are included in the Metro Area Transit
funds.

(Minnesota’s fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-54

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)

2-55

2-56

MDOT
General
Funds

Source

TOTAL

Multi-modal
Transit
Program

Programs

$800,000

$800,000

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)
Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other
X

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
X
Dedicated
Other

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Mississippi State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics
Remarks on Uses and Allocation

The legislature established a Multi-Modal
Transportation Improvement Program.
Funds are allocated by percentages
contained in the legislation.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Mississippi State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding for FY2005 was $800,000 or $0.27 per capita.

(Mississippi’s fiscal year is July to June.)

2-57

2-58

General Revenue

Source

Total

Missouri Elderly &
Handicapped
Transportation
Assistance Program
(MEHTAP)

Transit
Operating
Assistance

Programs

$6,600,000

$2,800,000

$3,800,000

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

X

X

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based X
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Historical

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other
X

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Missouri State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Offsets operating deficits of not-forprofit agencies that provide mobility
trips to seniors and people with disabilities
Allocated based on a formula that takes
into account the proposed number and
types of trips

Operating assistance for urban and rural
public transit providers to partially
offset operating deficits.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Missouri State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding was $6.6 million in FY 2005, or about $1.14 per capita.

•

Only general revenue funds are used for transit, as the Missouri constitution
prohibits state gas tax money from being used for anything other than roads.

•

Seven public urban transit providers and 30 rural transit providers receive state
transit operating assistance funds; 195 nonprofit organizations receive Missouri
Elderly and Handicapped Transportation Assistance Program (MEHTAP) funds.

•

For FY 2005, state operating assistance funded about 1 percent of the operations
budget of large urban systems, 4 percent for small urban systems, and 4 percent of
rural systems.

•

For FY 2005, MEHTAP offset 11 percent of the total cost of trips provided.

(Missouri’s fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-59

2-60

TransADE
Elderly and
Disabled Services

Motor
Vehicle License
Fees

Total

Transit Capital
and
Operations

Programs

State Gas Tax

Source

$415,197

$340,197

$75,000

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

X

X

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

X

X

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Montana State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Competitive allocation to agencies
providing service to elderly and disabled
persons, based on need and degree of
service coordination.

Allocated to six general public provider
transit districts for capital and operations.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Montana State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding was $415,197 in FY 2005, or about $0.44 per capita.

•

Although the TransADE funding amount is determined annually, the gas tax
contribution to transit is fixed.

(Montana’s fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-61

2-62

Intercity Bus

General
Fund
($0.5 million)

Total

Transit Operations

Programs

Highway Trust
Fund
($1.0 million)

Source

$1,500,000

$100,000

$1,400,000

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

X

X

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

X

X

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Nebraska State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Allocated for both capital and operating
expenditures. Includes vehicle purchase,
administration, marketing, and operating
costs.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Nebraska State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding was $1.5 million for FY 2005 or $0.85 per capita.

•

State operating support is provided on a deficit basis, limited to a cap determined
by a formula.

•

Beginning in 2004, state funds are distributed to both rural and urban transit
systems based on a percentage of their prior year’s allocation.

•

The Nebraska Department of Roads, through the Rail and Public Transportation
Division, administers the Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP) on a statewide
basis.

(Nebraska’s fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-63

2-64

Interest on
NDOT
Trust Fund

Interest on
NDOT
Trust Fund

Source

5309
Vehicle
Acquisition

Total

5311 Non-Urbanized
Area
Capital

5310 Vehicle Funding
for Specialized
Transportation

Programs

$95,000

$0

$45,000

$50,000

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

X

X

X

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Nevada State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Estimate for vehicle acquisition.

Matches one-half of the non-Federal share
of 5311 capital projects.

Matches 10% of the required 20% match
for Federal funds for purchases of
vehicles for providing transit to the
elderly and disabled.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Nevada State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding in FY 2005 was $95,000 or approximately $0.04 per
capita. These funds do not include NDOT staff administration.

•

Nevada also receives federal monies for the Rural Transit Assistance Program
(RTAP).

•

Nevada was awarded a 5309 grant for the Urbanized Area Capital Purchases
Program. When available, these funds will be distributed through the state
prioritization process.

(Nevada’s fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-65

2-66

Capital Match

State Capital Budget
(bonds $75m in 2-year
budget)

$225,000

$100,000

$125,000

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Total

Operating Assistance

Programs

General Funds
($2.8m appropriated
to DOT)

Source

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

X

X

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

X

X

Type of Funding
(Check box)

New Hampshire State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Match for transit vehicle purchases
(10%). (1/2 of 2-year appropriation)

Match for local transit systems under
Section 5311. Formula based on ridership.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

New Hampshire State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding in FY 2005 was $225,000 or approximately $0.17 per
capita.

•

These funds consisted of general funds and capital budget (bond) funds.

(New Hampshire’s fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-67

2-68

Casino
Revenues
$482.1 million

Petroleum Product
Gross Receipt Tax
$250 million

Motor Fuels
Taxes
$565 million

General Fund

Source

New Jersey
Transportation
Trust Fund,
transit portion
($606.6 million)

Elderly and
Disabled
Programs

$910,584,000

$25,287,000

$102,239,000

$158,475,000

Urban Core
Program

System-wide
Capital
Improvements

$100,910,000

$244,973,000

$278,700,000

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Bus-LRT
Programs

Rail
Programs

Transit
Operations

Programs

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

X

X

X

X
X

X
X

X

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

X

X

X

X

X

X

Type of Funding
(Check box)

New Jersey State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Elderly and disabled capital projects

Discretionary project grants

Individual major capital projects

Capital - Facilities, equipment, and
maintenance.

Capital - Facilities, equipment, and
maintenance.

Operating budget items.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

New Jersey State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding increased from $837.5 million in 2004 to $910.6 million
in FY 2005, for a per capita funding of $104.45.

•

Public transit services throughout New Jersey are provided by a single state
agency, the New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit).

•

NJ Transit elderly and disabled programs are funded from a separate casino
revenue fund.

•

The New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund supports both transit and highway
programs. The portion of the trust fund shown here reflects expenditures for
transit purposes.

(New Jersey’s fiscal year is July to June.)

2-69

2-70

Regional
Transit
Districts

Regional
Transit
Districts

State
Road
Fund

Gross
Receipts
Tax

TOTAL

Park and Ride
Commuter Bus
Service

Programs

State
Road
Fund

Source

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

$0

$2,830,000

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

X
X
X

X
X

X

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

$750,000

$2,080,000

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

approved DOT budget

Specify: legislatively

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

X

X

X

Type of Funding
(Check box)

New Mexico State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Language was added to RTD Legislation
to allow Local Option Gross Receipts Tax
at a rate not to exceed .5% for RTD's.
To date only two RTDS have been certified.
Local Option Tax has not been presented
to voters for approval.

Funds will be used to provide seed
money for up to three Regional Transit
Districts, throughout New Mexico.

For operation of Statewide Park and Ride
Commuter Bus Service.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

New Mexico State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding for FY 2005 is $2,830,000 resulting in a per capita figure
of $1.47.

•

The 2005 legislature approved a DOT budget that provides $1.6 million for Park
and Ride Commuter bus service statewide.

•

The 2004 legislative session passed a regional transportation district (RTD) bill
with taxing authority. This bill provides for dedicated state transit funds in FY
2004 and FY 2005 from the State Road Fund to establish the transit districts.

(New Mexico’s fiscal year is July to June.)

2-71

2-72

SUBTOTAL

$103,016,000

$45,000,000

$21,447,000

Additional Upstate
Operating
Assistance

MTA Student
Reduced Fare
Program

$36,569,000

Section 18-b STOA
Operating Assistance
Program

Programs

*Metropolitan Transportation Commuter District (MTCD) only.

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

General Fund

Source

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
X
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based X
Legislated
X
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based X
Legislated
X
Dedicated
Other

Type of Funding
(Check box)

New York State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

PAGE ONE

Special funds to support MTA Student
Reduced Fare Program. 100% match
provided by New York City.

No local match required for general funds
provided in addition to Section 18-b
requirement. Portion of appropriation provided
pursuant to a legislative line item in state budget;
portion provided pursuant to a revenue passenger and vehicle mile formula.

Statewide Mass Transportation Operating
Assistance (STOA) provided under Section
18-b requires 100% local match. Portion
of appropriation provided pursuant to a legislative
line item in state budget; portion provided pursuant
to a revenue passenger and vehicle mile formula.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Public Transportation
System Operating
Assistance Fund
Upstate Account

Metropolitan MTOA
Downstate
Account

Mass Transportation
Operating Assistance
Fund (MTOA)

SUBTOTAL
(from previous page)

Programs

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

SUBTOTAL

*Metropolitan Transportation Commuter District (MTCD) only.

(55% MMTOA/
45% PTOA)

Portion of Base
Petroleum Business Tax

(Transportation/
transmission companies)

Long Lines Tax*

1/4% Sales Tax*

Portion of Corporate
Franchise Tax
Surcharge*

Suburban Transportation
Fund (portion of
mortgage recording tax

Source

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other
Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other

$4,896,000

$64,506,000

$1,512,905,000

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

$1,157,947,000

$182,540,000

$103,016,000

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based X
Legislated
X
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based X
Legislated
X
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based X
Legislated
X
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based X
Legislated
X
Dedicated
Other

Type of Funding
(Check box)

New York State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Dedicated non-matching assistance for transit
systems outside the 12-county metropolitan
transportation district. Portion of appropriation
provided pursuant to a legislative line item in the
state budget; portion provided pursuant to a
passenger revenue and vehicle mile formula.

STOA provided under Section 18-b requires
100% local match. Portion of appropriation
provided pursuant to a legislative line item in
state budget; portion provided pursuant to a
revenue passenger and vehicle mile formula.

Dedicated non-matching assistance for transit
systems within the 12-county metropolitan
transportation district. Portion of appropriation
provided pursuant to a legislative line item in
state budget; portion provided pursuant to a
revenue passenger and vehicle mile formula.

STOA provided under Section 18-b requires
100% local match. Portion of appropriation
provided pursuant to a legislative line item in
state budget; portion provided pursuant to a
revenue passenger and vehicle mile formula.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

2-73

2-74

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
X
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based X
Legislated
X
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based X
Legislated
X
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
X
Other

Type of Funding
(Check box)

PAGE THREE

Portion of trust fund redirected to address
operating assistance needs. Portion of appropriation
provided pursuant to a legislative line item in
state budget; portion provided pursuant to a
revenue passenger and vehicle mile formula.

Dedicated share of transit allocation of trust fund for non-MTA
systems. Used for state share of Federally-funded capital projects (10%) for non-MTA systems ($17.0m). Local sponsors
match the remaining non-Federal share (10%). The balance
($16m) funds a 100% state-supported non-MTA capital
program to address needs that exceed available Federal funds.

Dedicated MTA share of transit allocation
(34%) of state trust fund. Used for operating,
capital, and debt service.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

NOTE: MMTOA = Metropolitan Mass Transportation Operating Assistance-dedicated fund for systems operating within the 12 county MTCD.
NOTE: PTOA = Public Transportation Operating Systems Assistance-dedicated fund for systems operating outside of the 12 county MTCD.

TOTAL

$2,169,005,000

$22,800,000

Additional NonMTA Operating
Assistance

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE

$33,000,000

Non-MTA Capital
and Operating
Assistance

100% Supplemental
Petroleum Business
Tax

$600,300,000

$1,512,905,000

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

MTA Capital
and Operating
Assistance

Dedicated Mass
Transportation Trust
Fund (DMTTF)

SUBTOTAL
(see previous page)

Programs

Portion of Base
Petroleum Business
Tax

Source

New York State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics (continued)

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

New York State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Provides record level funding program of $2.169 billion in FY 2005; or
approximately $113 per capita.

•

Operating assistance is administered through the Statewide Mass Transportation
Operating Assistance (STOA) program. The program is funded through the
general fund, the Mass Transportation Operating Assistance (MTOA) fund, and
the Dedicated Mass Transportation Trust fund (DMTTF).

•

MTOA is the dedicated tax portion of the STOA.

•

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), Staten Island Ferry, New York
City DOT, the four upstate regional transportation authorities, and Westchester,
Nassau, and Suffolk Counties receive STOA funding through a specific line item
in the state budget. The remaining bus systems receive STOA through an
incentive-based passenger and vehicle mile formula.

•

The state provides 50 percent of the nonfederal share of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA-LU) federally funded
transit capital projects for systems other than the MTA (not to exceed 10 percent of
the project cost). As part of a multiyear transportation program for systems other
than the MTA, the state also provides $16 million annually in 100 percent state
funds to address priority capital needs that exceed available federal resources.
MTA capital requirements are addressed from the state contribution to the MTA
multiyear capital program.

(New York’s fiscal year is from April to March.)

2-75

2-76

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

Balance from the
State Highway
Trust Fund

At least $.50 multiplied by
the total number of registered
vehicles in the state is
allocated to transit from the
Highway Fund

Source

$4,600,000

Statewide Transit
Development
Program

$49,546,272

$500,000

Rural
Facility
Program
SUBTOTAL

$7,450,000

Rural
Capital
Program

$5,500,000

$1,585,000

Urban bus
and facilities

Elderly and
Disabled
Program

$29,911,272

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Urban & regional
maintenance
assistance

Programs

Capital
X
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
X
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
X
Planning X
Other
X

Capital
X
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Type of Funding
(Check box)

North Carolina State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Project grants for facilities in nonurbanized areas.

Capital grants to non-urbanized area
transportation systems.

Formula allocation to 100 counties for
operation assistance only.

Discretionary project grants to match
FTA funding apportionments, local TDM
programs and demonstration projects.

Funding for 1/2 local match for urban
and regional FTA capital grants.

Formula allocation to fixed route
systems for operations only. State share
cannot exceed local.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

$4,500,000

Operating Assistance
for Rural General
Public Service

SUBTOTAL

Rural Transportation
Program
Administration

$78,466,447

$2,700,000

$19,470,175

$400,000

Rural Intercity
Service
Program

Regional
New
Starts

$1,850,000

$49,546,272

Transit Funds
(FY 2004)

Urban and
Rural Technology
Program

Subtotal from previous
page.

Programs

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE

Balance from the
State Highway
Trust Fund

At least $.50 multiplied by
the total number of registered
vehicles in the state is
allocated to transit from the
Highway Fund

Source

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other
X

Capital
Operating
Both
X
Planning X
Other

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
X
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

X

X

X

X

X

X

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Funding for rural transportation system
administrative costs (urban area
counties and human service only rural
systems).

Funding for New Start Projects.

Formula allocation to rural agencies
serving the general public for operating
assistance only.

Dedicated operating funds for regional/
intercity services for contract ops
through state and/or local jurisdictions.

Project grants to urban and rural systems
to improve customer convenience and
system effectiveness.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

North Carolina State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics (continued)

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

2-77

2-78

$111,724,897

$31,858,450

NC:
Moving
Ahead!

TOTAL

$1,400,000

$78,466,447

Transit Funds
(FY 2004)

Work
First
Program

Subtotal from previous
page

Programs

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE

Balance from the
State Highway
Trust Fund

Source

Capital
X
Operating
Both
Planning X
Other

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

X

X

X

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Project grants to urban and rural
systems for much needed improvements
to the state's transportation network.

Formula allocation to all 100 counties to
assist with Work First and employment
transportation needs.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

North Carolina State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics (continued)

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

North Carolina State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding in FY 2005 was $111.7 million, or $12.87 per capita.

•

Rural Vanpool Program: Expanded North Carolina’s Rural Vanpool Program
targeting North Carolina residents earning less than 200% of the poverty level.
The program transports people to work who otherwise would probably be
unemployed or have to use a large portion of their income for the commute trip.
As many as 30 rural vanpools operated across the state in 2005. State transit funds
identified for employment transportation are used to support the majority of the
costs associated with this program.

•

Light Rail: Supported light rail systems for North Carolina’s metropolitan
regions. The city of Charlotte made history this year as the first transit system in
the state to receive full federal funding for the South Corridor Rail Project, which
is scheduled to begin operation in 2007. State funding in excess of $106 million
will provide nearly 25% of the project cost.

Note: Transit received $120 million from the Highway Trust Fund for FY 2002-2004.
The funds were used to provide additional urban operating assistance, upgrade
vehicle fleets in rural systems statewide and for New Start projects. The decrease in
transit funding for FY 2005 is due to these funds no longer being available for transit
projects.

(North Carolina’s fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-79

2-80

($3/vehicle per year)

Statewide Vehicle
Registration Fee

Source

North Dakota
Public
Transportation
Fund

Programs

TOTAL

State Transit
Operating/Capital/
and Planning
Assistance

$2,203,657

$2,203,657

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

X
X
X
X
X

base is $12,200 per capita in the county plus
$1.56 per capita in the county. Funds flow

Specify:

among providers.

county the state aid funds are split between/

directly from the state to governmental or
private nonprofit transit provider(s) in the county.
If more than one eligible provider exists in the

ulation and base funding amount. For 2005 the

operators in that county, based on county pop-

funds to each county for public transportation

State statutory formula distribution of

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Discretionary
Formula-based X
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Transit Funds Eligible Uses Type of Funding
(FY 2005)
(Check box)
(Check box)

North Dakota State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

North Dakota State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding in FY 2005 was $2.20 million or $3.46 per capita.

•

State funding covers about 21.5 percent of all federal and state transit funding in
North Dakota for 2005.

•

State aid for public transit funds in North Dakota are not restricted and can be
used by transit project recipients for all transit costs, including operating costs,
capital costs, transit planning costs, and the costs of matching federal transit
funds.

(North Dakota’s fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-81

2-82

(two 1-year appropriations)

Biennial Legislative
Appropriations

General Fund

Source

($11.0 million)

Ohio Public
Transportation
Grant Program

TOTAL

$5,000,000

Elderly and
Disabled Transit
Assistance Program

$18,300,000

$1,200,000

$1,100,000

$4,200,000

$6,800,000

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other
X

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
X
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
X
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
X
Planning X
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based X
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary X
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based X
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based X
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Transit Funds Eligible Uses Type of Funding
(FY 2005)
(Check box)
(Check box)

Human Service
Coordination
Program

FTA
Section 5311
Recipients

FTA
Section 5307
Recipients

Programs

Ohio State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Administration costs

Reimbursement to systems where elderly
and disabled fares are not more than half
the fare charged to the general public.

Discretionary project grants available to
establish, continue or improve transportation coordination among human
service agencies for administration and
operations.

Provides up to 30% of operating expenses
and 10% of project cost for capital
expenses.

Formula allocation for Federal match for
urbanized areas. Provides up to 50%
of non-Federal operating expenses for
areas with populations of less than
200,000 only, up to 80% of non-federal
project cost at grantee request for capital,
and 10% of project cost for planning.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Ohio State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding decreased from $24.4 million in FY 2002 (excluding the
rail program) to $18.3 million in FY 2005 (excluding the rail program). Per capita
state investment for FY 2005 is $1.60

•

State funding supports capital and planning in all areas; it supports operating
assistance only in areas with populations of less than 200,000.

•

ODOT places a strong emphasis on oversight and technical support.

•

There is no longer a state discretionary capital program using state funds. A
limited discretionary program is being continued using congestion mitigation air
quality (CMAQ) funds.

•

Formula allocation for 5311 recipients incorporates performance factors, including
ridership (50 percent), revenue miles of service (25 percent), and level of local
support (25 percent). Compliance with requirements and timeliness of
submissions are also evaluated. For 5307 recipients, it is 20% ridership, 20%
revenue miles, 10% fare box revenue, 20% cost per hour, 20% passengers per mile,
10% fare box recovery.

•

A committee appointed by the governor and the Ohio General Assembly—the
Transportation Review Advisory Committee—uses state motor fuel taxes
(highway purpose projects) and Federal highway funds for major new
transportation projects, including transit projects.

(Ohio’s fiscal year is July to June.)

2-83

2-84

( $500,000 )

FY ending 6-30-06

State General Fund

State General Fund
(Discretionary)
($1.9 million)

State Fuel Tax
Dedicated Funds
($850,000)

Source

Public Transit
Revolving
Fund

TOTAL

All other public
transportation
providers

Tulsa Transit

Metro Transit

New Starts

Programs

$3,250,000

$1,852,500

$617,500

$617,500

$162,500

Capital
Operating
Both
X
Planning X
Other
X

Capital
Operating
Both
X
Planning X
Other
X

Capital
Operating
Both
X
Planning X
Other
X

Capital
X
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based X
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Transit Funds Eligible Uses Type of Funding
(FY 2005)
(Check box)
(Check box)

Oklahoma State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

For all purposes. Allocated based on
vehicle revenue miles for the previous
fiscal year.

For all purposes

For all purposes

Urban and rural new starts, including
expansion of service mode by existing
operators.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Oklahoma State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding in FY 2005 was $3.25 million or $.922 per capita. All
state transit funds were appropriated to the Public Transit Revolving Fund
(PTRF).

•

Funding sources included $850,000 from the state fuel tax that is dedicated to the
PTRF every year and $1.9 million in funds appropriated by the legislature.

•

An additional $500,000 was appropriated by the legislature for FY 2005 only.

•

Five percent of funds appropriated to the PTRF are set aside for new starts.

•

By state statute, Oklahoma County and Tulsa County transit services receive 20
percent each from the PTRF annually.

•

The balance of money appropriated to the PTRF is distributed to all other public
transit providers using a pro rata share of the vehicle revenue miles.

(Oklahoma’s fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-85

2-86

Mass Transit
Tax

Lottery Bonds

($47,063 in FY 05)

General Fund-($0.00 in FY 05)
Non-Highway Fuel Tax-

Lottery Bonds

DMV ID Card Fee
$1,824,214

Non-highway Use
Fuel Tax - $2,803,860

Cigarette Tax
$4,174,997

Source

TOTAL

Transit
District
Assistance

Commuter
Rail
Program

Oregon Passenger
Rail
Program

TriMet Urban
Light Rail
Program

Special
Transportation
Fund

Programs

$26,140,529

$7,327,395

$0

$47,063

$9,963,000

$8,803,071

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Capital
Operating
Both
X
Planning
Other

Capital
X
Operating
Both
Planning
Other
X

Capital
Operating
Both
X
Planning
Other
X

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other
X

Capital
Operating
Both
X
Planning X
Other

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Oregon State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

To transit and transportation districts for
transit operations and capital expenditures.
Allocated to those eligible as a percent (0.6%)
of the state wages paid locally. Cannot
receive more than their own taxing resources
(i.e. a 50% match). Distributed by Dept.
of Administrative Services rather than ODOT.

Allocated for developing a suburban
commuter link with high tech industrial areas
external to the Portland Metro area. For
track improvement and trains. Project has
$35 million scheduled of state funds through
ODOT Rail Division (in planning stage).

Discretionary allocation for operation,
equipment, and track improvements for
Oregon High Speed Rail Program through
ODOT Rail Division.

Discretionary allocation of lottery profits
for debt service and bond repayment for
Portland West Side Light Rail.

Distributed through ODOT Public Transit
Division to counties and districts for senior
and disabled transportation - 75% of fund
allocation based on population, 25% based
on a competitive grant process.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Oregon State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding decreased from $31.4 million in FY 2004 to $26.1 million
in FY 2005. Per capita investment for FY 2005 is $7.18.

•

Most state funding is allocated to “special” programs, including elderly and
disabled and new fixed-guideway projects.

•

State general funds have been replaced by “other fund” revenues as the
predominant source of funding for state transit programs.

•

Of the $1.28 for 20-pack and $1.68 for 25 pack cigarette tax, 89.65% is allocated to
the state general fund. Of that amount, 3.45% per pack is allocated to the Special
Transportation Fund for senior and disabled transportation.

•

The in-lieu-of-payroll tax support applies to mass transit districts and
transportation districts. Amounts provided through this program may not exceed
the amount the district receives from its own taxes.

(Oregon’s fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-87

2-88

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

General Funds

$116.7 million Lottery
$21.6 million Supplemental

$138,262,000

$75,000,000

$175,317,000

$288,565,000

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

SUBTOTAL $677,144,000

Senior Citizen
Transportation Program
Fixed-Route & Shared
Ride Service

Lottery Funds and
Supplemental General
Funds

Transfer of 1.22% of Sales
Tax proceeds not to exceed
$75 million annually

Dedicated
Supplemental Funds
(Act 3 Revenue
Enhancement
Initiative)

Dedicated Public
Transportation
Assistance Fund
(PTAF)

Operating
Assistance

Programs

Supplemental Dedicated
Funds:

Sales Tax - Sales
Proceeds equivalent to 6%
Sales Tax on Periodicals,
Selected Truck Leases,
& proceeds equivalent to prior
public utility-related payments.

Auto Rental Tax ($2/day)
Vehicle Lease Tax (3% of price)
Tire Fee ($1/tire)
Annual Transfer of .937%

Dedicated Funds

General Fund

Source

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other
X

Capital
Operating
Both
X
Planning
Other

Capital
X
Operating
Both
Planning
Other
X

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other

hour restriction. Shared-Ride Program funded exclusively with
$64.9m Lottery Funds. Fixed-Route Program funded with $51.8m
of Lottery Funds and $21.6m of Supplemental General Funds.

Specify: Fare

reimbursement

Allocated based on senior citizen rider ship and average or base
fare levels-$71.7m for urban and $1.7m for rural systems. Funds
provide 100% fare reimbursement for providing free senior
citizens fares during off-peak hours for Fixed-Route Service and
85% of eligible fares for Shared-Ride Service which has no peak

$69.7m for urban; $4.1m for rural; and $1.2m for community transportation. Eligible uses include capital assistance only for
community transportation and capital or operating assistance for
urban and rural. Urban systems may use approximately 75%
of funds for operating assistance, including asset maintenance,
and the balance for capital assistance. Rural systems may use all
funds for operating assistance.

portation systems. Up to 50% of urban or rural PTAF funds may
be used for asset maintenance. Technical assistance funds may
also be used for training and demonstration projects.

$166m for urban; $4.5m for rural; $2.3m for community transportation; and $2.5m for technical assistance. Eligible uses include capital assistance for urban, rural and community trans-

Allocated by legislative formula: $286.2m for
urban; $2.4m for rural. Eligible uses include all
standard categories of operating assistance.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Discretionary
Formula-based X
Legislated
X
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based X
Legislated
X
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based X
Legislated
X
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based X
Legislated
X
Dedicated
Other

Eligible Uses Type of Funding
(Check box)
(Check box)

Pennsylvania State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Miscellaneous
Other
Programs

General Funds

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE

$7,413,000

Intercity
Transportation
Program

General Funds

TOTAL $835,223,000

$3,961,000

$146,705,000

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Discretionary
Capital Assistance
Program

Programs

General State
Obligation Bond
Proceeds

Source

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other
X

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
X
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Specify:

Discretionary X
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary X
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary X
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Eligible Uses Type of Funding
(Check box)
(Check box)

Allocated for specific projects as determined by the
Department. Eligible uses include operating
assistance for Persons with Disabilities Demonstration
Program ($2.1m); consultant oversight costs for State
Rail Transit Safety Oversight Program ($0.3m);
operating assistance for the Job Access Program
($0.2m) and special stop gap assistance ($1.3m).

Allocated for specific projects as determined by the
Department. Funds were used for operating
assistance only and included $6.0m for the Intercity
Rail Program and $1.4m for the Intercity Bus
Program.

Allocated to specific capital projects authorized in
periodic State Capital Budgets. Generally, annual
policy allocation approximates urban and rural
legislative formula allocations (e.g. 97% urban/3%
rural). Eligible uses include all standard categories of
capital assistance and vehicle overhaul costs.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Pennsylvania State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics (continued)

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

2-89

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Pennsylvania State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding increased from $785.2 million in FY 2004 to
$835.2 million in FY 2005. Per capita investment in FY 2005 was $67.20.

•

The funding sources include state general fund, dedicated funds (including both
Public Transportation Assistance Fund [PTAF] and Act 3 Revenue Enhancement
Initiative), Lottery Funds, and General Obligation Bond Proceeds.

•

The state has a constitutional restriction prohibiting the use of highway funds for
public transportation.

•

State-dedicated PTAF and Act 3 funds are exclusively for public transportation.

(Pennsylvania’s fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-90

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)

2-91

2-92

State
Appropriations

General Obligation
Bonds

24.2% of gas taxes collected)

(7.25 cents/gallon to transit

Motor Fuel Taxes

Source

TOTAL

Capital Program

Department of
Elderly Affairs
Program

Operating Assistance

Programs

$34,847,617

$244,647

$4,384,212

$30,218,758

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

X

X

X

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

X

X

X

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Rhode Island State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Funds 20% state match of Federal funds
for bus purchases ($.211m). Used $.033
million for acquisition/design/construction
of transit facilities.

Allocated for elderly/disabled reduced fares
for RIPTA fixed-route services, RIPTA
ADA services, and Department of Elderly
Affairs elderly transportation. Uses 1.0 cent
per gallon of the Motor Fuel Tax.

Allocated to RI Public Transit Authority
(RIPTA) operations. Uses 6.25 cents
per gallon from Motor Fuel Tax.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Rhode Island State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding fell from $36.8 million in FY 2004 to $34.8 million in
FY 2005 for a per capita figure of $32.38.

•

The Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA) serves as the paratransit broker in Rhode Island. RIPTA is the largest of the paratransit carriers and contracts
with two other carriers to provide elderly and disabled paratransit services. The
paratransit brokerage is known as Ride.

•

Rhode Island voters passed a referendum in November 2004 to spend $1.5 million
for bus purchases.

(Rhode Island’s fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-93

2-94

1/4 of one cent

Motor Fuel
Taxes

Source

State
Mass Transit
Fund

$5,943,000

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

State
Mass Transit
Programs

TOTAL

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

X

X

X
X

X

X

X

X

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Statewide
Planning
Assistance

$680,000

$2,696,000

$967,000

State Match for
Small Urban
Operators

State Match for
Rural (Non-urban)
Operators

$1,600,000

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

State Match for
Large Urban
Operators

Programs

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

X

X
X

X

X

Type of Funding
(Check box)

South Carolina State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Funds special programs and special
projects of the Mass Tranist Office.

Match for FTA 5311 funds. Can be used
for operating, administrative and technical
assistance/planning expenses. Up to
20% can be used as match.

Match for FTA 5309 funds. Can be used
for both operating and administrative
expenses.

Match for FTA 5307 funds. Can be used
for both operating and capital expenses.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

South Carolina State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding in FY 2005 was $5.9 million or about $1.40 per capita.

•

An additional $1.3 million in state general funds was made available to the state
mass transit budget early in state fiscal year 2005-2006. As of the end of December
2005 none of these additional funds have been expended.

•

The majority of the state transit funding budget—$5.9 million in FY 2005—is used
for matching FTA funds that are awarded in South Carolina.

•

The South Carolina Department of Transportation, through its legislative liaison,
is currently lobbying the state legislature for an increase in the state’s motor fuel
tax allocation for mass transit and to continue to make this funding source
permanent and dedicated.

(South Carolina’s fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-95

2-96

Other State
Funds
($888,625)

Public & Specialized
Transportation
Fund ($429,000)

Source

$1,891,229

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

TOTAL $1,891,229

Operating Assistance

Programs

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other
X

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other
X

Type of Funding
(Check box)

South Dakota State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Allocated among 5311 providers by
account ridership and miles driven.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

South Dakota State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding in FY 2005 was $1,891,229 or $ 2.44 per capita.

•

State funding came from the Public and Specialized Transportation Fund
($429,000) and from other state funds ($888,625).

(South Dakota’s fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-97

2-98

Gas Tax

TOTAL

$33,956,000

$248,000

Elderly and
Disabled
(5310)

$5,932,000

Rural
Transportation

$3,000,000

$16,659,000

Urban
Operating
Assistance

Job
Access
(Rural/Urban)

$8,117,000

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Urban
Capital
Assistance

Programs

CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE

Source

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

X

X

X

X

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

X

X

X

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Tennessee State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

State match of 10% of capital (half of nonFederal match).

Match of Federal funds for the Jobs
Access Program.

Discretionary match of 5311 funds,
operating assistance, 4% increase in
operating over 2004.

Match of up to 50% of non-Federal share.
3% increase over 2004.

Match for 5307, 5309 (bus, rail,
rail modernization, new starts), and STP/
Flex Funds. 10% State match.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

TOTAL

Families First "Welfare to Work
Transportation"

$34,196,000

Considered
Federal
Funds

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

$0

Ridesharing/Park-andRide Lots/Special
Projects (BRT
Feasibility Study)

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

$97,000

$143,000

X

X

X

X

X

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Student
Intern
Program

Urban/Rural
Training
Assistance

MPO/Statewide
Planning
(5303 and 5313b)

Transit Funds
Programs
(FY 2005)
SUBTOTAL $33,956,000
(from previous page)

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE

Federal HHS Funds
TN Dept. of Human
Services

Gas Tax

Source

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

X

X

X

X

X

Type of Funding
(Check box)

This program transferred from TN Dept. of
Human Services - July 1, 2004. TDOT used
state funds to begin program and will be
reimbursed by Dept. of Human Services with
Federal Funds. TDOT Finance considers the
$8,400,000 as Federal money in Transit budget.

Funded from previous year's budgets for
FY 2005. Allocated to local agencies.

Allocated for student intern program.

Allocated for training assistance.

Match of Federal funds for planning.
Statewide planning 5313(b) used for technical assistance program.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Tennessee State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics (continued)

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

2-99

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Tennessee State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Eighteen (18) urban and ten (10) rural systems provide public transportation
services in all of Tennessee’s ninety-five (95) counties. These public transit
agencies operated a total of 1,400 buses, trolleys and vans to serve the mobility
needs of Tennesseans. New public transit systems started in 2005 in the cities of
Cleveland, Morristown, Murfreesboro and Sevierville.

•

During 2005 the Tennessee Department of Transportation, (TDOT) funded and
participated in transit feasibility studies for three (3) small urban cities. One or
more of these cities may choose to start public transit service by the end of 2006.

•

TDOT has been very active during 2005 in completing the development of its Long
Range Multi-Modal Transportation Plan. The public comment period on the draft
plan ended in October of 2005 and the final Plan will be issued in the spring 2006.
Public Transportation is a significant element of the Long Range Plan.

•

TDOT continues its commitment to statewide coordination of transportation
services. Since July 1, 2004 TDOT has managed the transportation portion of the
Families First Welfare to Work Program for the Tennessee Department of Human
Services. TDOT is also using its United We Ride grant funds to increase
coordination efforts among other state and local government partners for the
provision of transportation to human service program participants.

(Tennessee’s fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-100

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)

2-101

2-102
$9,562,571

$29,741,067

TOTAL

$20,178,496

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Eligible 5307 programs
in areas between
50,000 & 200,000
population

All eligible 5311
(non-urban)
Programs

Programs

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

X
X
X

X
X
X

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

X

X

Type of Funding
(Check box)

100% of 5307 funds are allocated to recipients
based on 80% needs and 20% performance.

100% of 5311 funds are allocated to recipients
based on 80% needs and 20% performance.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

the heading "Source," and reflects only the FY 2005 programmed amount under the heading "Transit Funds." Total funds appropriated
by program for the FY 2004-2005 biennium were $38.4 million and $19.1 million for 5311 and 5307 respectively. Effective FY 2005,
Texas changed the formula for allocating state funds. The new formula considers demographic and performance factors.

NOTE: The State of Texas provides transit funds on a two-year cycle. The figure shows the two-year (FY 2004-2005) appropriated amount under

dedicated portion, $57.5m)

(non-constitutionally

State Highway Fund

Source

Texas State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics (continued)

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Texas State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funds increased from $54.4 million in the FY 2002–2003
biennium to $57.5 million in the FY 2004–2005 biennium.

•

Of the state funds allocated for transit, 100% (i.e. 80% needs and 20%
performance).

•

Generally speaking, state funds are available to Section 5307 recipients that have
populations between 50,000 and 200,000. Certain 5307 recipients who have more
than 200,000 in population, but do not have a transit tax, may also be eligible for
state assistance. Although most state funding does not require any matching
funds, some 5307 systems, because of their locations in areas served by a transit
authority, must match state funds with local funds.

•

Effective FY 2005 Texas changed the formula for allocating state funds. The new
formula considers demographic and performance factors.

(Texas’ fiscal year is September to August.)

2-103

2-104

Programs

NO STATE FUNDING PROVIDED
FOR TRANSIT IN FY 2005.

Source

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Utah State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics
(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Utah State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Utah currently provides no state transit funding. All federal matches are made
with local dollars.

2-105

2-106

Transportation Fund

Source

TOTAL

Local
Transit
Operations

Programs

$6,266,976

$6,266,976

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)
Capital
X
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other
X

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary X
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Vermont State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Transportation funds support local
transit operations and are used to match
operating, capital, and Job Access and
Reverse Commute (JARC) grants.
Formula in Statute.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Vermont State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

State funds in the transit budget in FY 2005 totaled $6.27 million, or $10.06 per
capita.

•

Vermont provides 50% of the local match on capital acquisitions.

•

By statute, Vermont has a funding formula for all operating grants.

(Vermont’s fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-107

2-108

($109.1m,
14.7% of CTF)

Mass Transit
Fund

TDM = Transportation Demand Management

NOTE:
CTF = Commonwealth Transportation Fund

Regional Motor
Fuel Tax (2%)

Other Fees, Taxes
and Interest

Sales Tax
(0.5%)

Motor Vehicle
Sales & Use Tax (1.0%)

TOTAL $157,600,000

$14,800,000

$27,500,000

Northern VA
Transportation
Commission

Potomac and
Rappahannock
Transportation
Commission

$1,700,000

$28,800,000

$84,800,000

Transit Special
Project
Assistance

Transit
Capital
Assistance

Transit
Operating
Assistance

Motor Fuel Tax
($.025)

Commonwealth
Transportation
Trust Fund

Programs

Source

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Capital
Operating
Both
X
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other
X

Capital
X
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
X
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
X
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary X
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify: Grant
applications

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
X
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based X
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Virginia State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Funding to support the operating and
capital expenses of the Virginia Railway
Express (commuter rail), Omniride
(commuter and local bus) and other
transportation projects and services.

Funding to support the Northern VA
share of the Washington Metropolitan
Area Transit Authority's operating
expenses.

Discretionary grants subject to review and
approval by Commonwealth Transportation
Board. The funds support ridesharing/
TDM projects, transit technical studies,
and transit demonstration projects. State
participation depends on the type of grant.

Allocated based on grant application
subject to approval by the Commonwealth
Transportation Board. Each project is
funded at the same percentage of state
participation, which may change each year.
By law, State can provide up to 95% of
local match of Federal funding (40% in
FY 2004).

Allocated based on each system's operating
expenses as a percentage of the statewide
total.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Virginia State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding for FY 2005 was $157.6 million for a per capita figure of
$20.83.

•

The Commonwealth Transportation Trust Fund provides most state funding for
transit in Virginia. Various general and motor vehicle taxes are used to support
the fund. About 14.7 percent of the fund was allocated to transit in FY 2005.

•

Nine counties in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area are supported by the
regional motor fuels tax. Two transportation commissions administer the
programs supported by this tax.

•

State highway funds may be used for transit on a project by project basis. In FY05
an additional $16.1 million in state highway funds and toll revenues supported
transit projects.

(Virginia’s fiscal year is July to June.)

2-109

2-110

Public
Transportation
& Commute
Options
($49.2m)

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

State
Multimodal
Transportation
Fund

Source

$1,815,000

JARC

$24,573,000

$1,729,000

FTA 5310

SUBTOTAL

$9,800,000

$4,229,000

FTA 5311

Paratransit &
Special Needs
Grants

$7,000,000

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Rural
Mobility
Grants

Programs

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other
Specify:

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Discretionary X
Formula-based X
Legislated
Dedicated
Other
Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other
Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other
Specify:

X

X

Discretionary X
Formula-based X
Legislated
Dedicated
Other
Specify:

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Washington State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Competitive and formula grants for capital and
operating grants for transit services provided
to individuals with special needs. $7.7m year
in state grant funds are distributed to 26 public
transit agencies based on their expenditures for
demand response services in 2003.

Competitive and formula grants for transit
capital and operating in rural areas.
$3.5 million in state funds are distributed to
the rural and small urban transit agencies
that receive less than 80% of the average
state per capita sales tax.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Public
Transportation
& Commute
Options
($49.2m)

Passenger
Rail
Program
($35m)

State
Multimodal
Transportation
Fund

State
Multimodal
Transportation
Fund

Source

TOTAL

$1,500,000

Trip
Reduction
Performance

$30,423,000

$0

$1,850,000

$2,500,000

$24,573,000

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Commute
Trip
Reduction

Vanpool
Grants

SUBTOTAL
(from previous page)

Programs

X

X

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning X
Other

Capital
X
Operating X
Both
Planning X
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
X
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Discretionary X
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other
Specify:

Discretionary X
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other
Specify:

Discretionary X
Formula-based X
Legislated
Dedicated
Other
Specify:

Discretionary X
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other
Specify:

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Washington State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

An innovative competitive grant program
purchases trip reduction based on an
annualized rate. The rtip reduction cost
must be less than the cost of expanding
capacity on the road. This program is
new and currently being evaluated.

Develop a market to reduce trips.

road. This program is new and currently being evaluated .

cost must be less than the cost of expanding capacity on the

duction based on an annualized rate. The trip reduction

An innovative competitive grant program purchases trip re-

formance of the trip reduction program in the previous year.

based upon the number of affected worksites and the per-

under state law. Funds are passed through to ten counties

The Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program is required

Grants to expand van pooling programs.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

2-111

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Washington State Transit Funding: Major Features

•

•

Total state transit funding for FY 2005-2007 is $84.2 million. For FY 2005, $32.5
million in appropriated funds and $8 million in unappropriated funds were
programmed for transit projects. This includes biennial funding of $36.4 million
for passenger rail operations and $88.1 million for rail capital.

•

The population of the state is 6,131,445. The service area population of the 26
transit systems is 5,185,390.

•

Most transit agencies are municipal corporations or operate under the authority of
county government. Three are operated under the authority of a city government.
Voter-approved taxes, fares, federal grants and other operating revenue fund local
transit agencies. In 2004, the total revenue for public transit operations was
$1,467.7 million.

•

The most common form of local transit revenue is the sales tax. In 2004, $876.8
million in sales tax was raised by the local transit agencies. Sound Transit, the
regional transit authority, also raises revenue through the motor vehicle excise tax.
In 2004, this amounted to $64.7 million.

•

State funding for public transportation and passenger rail services comes from the
state Multimodal Transportation Fund. Fees, sales tax on new and used cars and
other non-gas tax revenues are the main source of funding for this account. In 2005,
the State Legislature also added weight fees on vehicles that can be used for nonhighway projects. The Washington State Constitution prohibits the use of gas tax
on non-highway programs.

•

In May 2003, the Washington State Legislature passed a 10-year transportation
funding program that established new grants for public transportation, special
needs/Paratransit services, vanpool and commute trip reduction. The new revenue
is also available for both capital and operating projects within the passenger rail
program.

•

In 2005, the Legislature added a 9-cent gas tax and new weight fees on vehicles.
Both of these new revenue sources have been challenged. The voters upheld the gas
tax increase in a November 2005 election. The weight fees may be presented to the
voters in 2006.

The passenger rail program aligns with the north-south Interstate 5 highway. The
Washington State Department of Transportation has an operating agreement with Amtrak and
a use agreement with the Burlington-Northern/Santa Fe for the use of the tracks.

2-112

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)

2-113

2-114

General Funds

Source

$2,258,342

$1,000,000

$1,258,342

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Total

Match for Statewide
Capital Discretionary
(FTA 5309 Grants)

Operating Assistance
to Rural Transit
(FTA 5311 Program)

Programs

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

X

X

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

X

X

Type of Funding
(Check box)

West Virginia State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

State matching funds are provided to
match capital projects that are included in
the statewide Section 5307 grants. Both
urban and rural systems receive these
matching funds.

Provides matching funds, primarily for
operating assistance to those areas of
the state that lack the economic resources
to provide matching funds for the
Section 5311 program.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

West Virginia State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding in FY 2005 was $2.3 million or $1.24 per capita.

•

General revenue funds provide the state’s share of transit funding and are used
only to match FTA grants.

•

No state funds for operating assistance are provided to urban areas.

•

Only statewide Section 5309 grants receive state matching funds. Only current
5311 and 5307 recipients are eligible for this funding and must contribute local
matching funds.

•

General revenue funds provide the match for the Section 5313 program, and no
state funds are provided to administer any FTA grant.

(West Virginia’s fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-115

2-116

State of
Wisconsin
Transportation
Fund

Programs

NOTE:
TMA=Transportation Management Agency

Fees/
Revenues

Vehicle
Registration
Taxes

Motor Fuels
Taxes

Source

$1,146,041

$0

$921,900

$8,373,000

$336,000

$98,661,400

TOTAL $109,438,341

Intercity
Passenger
Rail

Multimodal
Transportation
Studies

Elderly and
Disabled Capital
Assistance Program

County Elderly
and Disabled
Program

Transportation
Employment and
Mobility Program

State Transit
Operating
Assistance

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
X
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
X
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Capital
Operating X
Both
Planning
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary X
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based X
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary X
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based X
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Transit Funds Eligible Uses Type of Funding
(FY 2004)
(Check box)
(Check box)

Wisconsin State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Funding for Wisconsin's share of the
costs of AMTRAK service between
Milwaukee and Chicago.

Used to acquire vehicles for elderly
and disabled transportation services.
Grants made primarily to private, nonprofit organizations and local public
bodies.

Provides aid to counties for specialized
transit services to the elderly and
disabled communities.

Grants emphasizing transportation
services that link low-income
individuals with jobs & that encourage
innovative alternatives to driving alone.
Eligible projects include transit, bike,
pedestrian, TMA formation, planning,
and access-to-jobs initiatives, including
private-sector pilot efforts.

Based ON equalized percentages of
combined state and federal operating
expenses within 3-tier system based on
system size.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Wisconsin State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding increased from $109 million in FY 2004 to $109,438,341
in FY 2005, for a current per capita funding level of $19.77.

•

State funding covers about 38 percent of operating costs statewide.

•

State funding supports the transportation employment and mobility program,
which emphasizes transportation services connecting low-income individuals
with jobs and encourages innovative alternatives to driving alone.

(Wisconsin’s fiscal year is from July to June.)

2-117

2-118

Operating and
Capital
Assistance
State Operating Subtotal

Programs

Interest Income from
the Transportation
Trust Fund

TOTAL

Transportation
Enterprise
Fund

*Note: Appropriation from Legislature of $568,935 and
$431,065 was a one-time 2005 appropriation of $1 million
to be used in 2005 and 2006 fiscal years. This money
appropriated to bridge gap to passage of SAFETEA-LU

Unrestricted State
Highway
Funds

Source

$2,955,511

$886,576

$2,068,935

Capital
Operating
Both
Planning
Other

Both
Planning
Other

X

X

Eligible Uses
(Check box)

$1,500,000
Capital
$568,935 * Operating

Transit Funds
(FY 2005)

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

Specify:

Discretionary
Formula-based
Legislated
Dedicated
Other

X

X

Type of Funding
(Check box)

Wyoming State Transit Funding: Program Structure and Characteristics

Purchase of public transit vehicles.

Allocated to local transit
providers to supplement and help
match 5307 and 5311 funding.

(If formula-based, describe formula)

Remarks on Uses and Allocation

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Wyoming State Transit Funding: Major Features
•

Total state transit funding in FY 2005 was $2.96 million or $5.80 per capita.

•

Transportation Enterprise Fund awards were made in November 2005 – a total of
$886,576 was awarded to 19 state transit providers.

•

Gas tax revenues are restricted to highway use only. Transit funds can only come
from other portions of the state highway fund, or State General Funds.

•

During FY 2005, Wyoming DOT did not flex any dollars of congestion mitigation
air quality (CMAQ) funds to the public transit program.

•

During FY 2005, Wyoming did not receive an FTA Section 5309 capital
discretionary funding appropriation.

•

Other funding sources for Wyoming public transit are local match funds and FTA
Sections 5311, 5311i, the Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP), 5304, 5310,
5303, 5307, and 5311(f), Intercity Bus.

(WyDOT’s fiscal year is from October to September.)

2-119

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

3.0 Highlights of State Transit
Funding, 2005
„ State Transit Programs Across the U.S.
In 2005, all 50 states and the District of Columbia (DC) responded to the Transit Survey.
This year, again, all 50 states and DC returned their surveys. Information from the 2005
survey is summarized followed by an overview of funding changes and historical
comparisons for the all programs for 2004 through 2005 (for purposes of this summary,
DC will be included with the states).
Sources of State Funds (Table 3.1). The most utilized sources for transit funding were the
general fund (used by 19 states), gas taxes (used by 15 states), motor vehicle/rental car
sales taxes (used by 9 states), bond proceeds (used by 8 states), registration/license/title
fees (used by 8 states), and general sales tax (used by 7 states). Twenty-seven states
reported that they used other sources for funding such as state highway funds, trust
funds, miscellaneous revenues, fees, taxes, lottery funds, tolls, or other types of
assessments. Eight of these 27 states relied solely (100% of transit dollars) on these
miscellaneous revenue sources.
Types of Investment (Table 3.2). Of the 51 transit programs, four reported no state
funding for transit. Of those programs providing state transit funding, 31 out of 47 (66
percent) reported specific funding amounts for capital expenditures; 30 out of 47 (64
percent) reported specific funding amounts for operating expenditures; 28 out of 47 (60
percent) reported funding amounts that could be used for either capital or operating
expenditures, and 14 out of 47 (30 percent) reported funding for planning, training,
studies, or other miscellaneous activities. About two and a half times as many dollars
were allocated for operating expenditures ($4.596 billion or 48 percent) compared to
capital expenditures ($1.838 billion or 19 percent). Funds allocated for either capital or
operating declined in 2005—from $3.44 billion (37 percent) in 2004 to $2.912 billion (31
percent) in 2005. Miscellaneous funding allocations totaled $1.70 million (1.8 percent).

3-1

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Table 3.1

Major Sources for Overall Transit Funding1

State
Alaska

Arizona
Arkansas
California
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Gas
General Fund Tax
98.9%

Motor
Registration/
Vehicle/Rental License/Title
Bond
General Interest
Car Sales Tax
Fees
Proceeds Sales Tax Income Other2
1.1%

0.3%

99.7%
100%
X
X
X

X

X
X

X

X

X

X

79%

X
X

X
X
X

21%

100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
32%
10%
X
X

68%
34%

33%

23%

X

X
X

X

X

X

X
100%
100%
18%

X

82%

X

X
100%

56%
31%

44%
66%

5%

3%
100%
X
X

X
100%

100%
69%
X
X

31%
X

X
X
X

X
97%
100%

X
X

X
X
X
100%

100%

X

X

X

X

100%
100%
X
100%

100%
X

X
30%

X
70%

Alabama
These four states do not use state funds for public transit
Colorado
Hawaii
Utah
Notes: 1A percentage figure is shown when the share or contribution of a particular source could be discerned. Where the
exact share cannot be computed, an “X” is placed to illustrate the state’s reliance on that source.
2 “Other” includes state highway funds, trust funds, miscellaneous revenues, fees, taxes, lottery funds, tolls, or other
types of assessments.

3-2

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Table 3.2
State

Types of Expenditures for State Transit Funding

Total Reported
FY 2005
Alabama*
$0
Alaska
$59,850,000
Arizona
$20,068,000
Arkansas
$2,800,000
California
$1,399,800,143
Colorado*
$0
Connecticut
$206,440,541
Delaware
$72,600,000
DC
$212,050,288
Florida
$149,738,231
Georgia
$8,222,757
Hawaii*
$0
Idaho
$312,000
Illinois
$445,600,000
Indiana
$37,046,940
Iowa
$10,140,000
Kansas
$6,000,000
Kentucky
$1,400,000
Louisiana
$4,962,500
Maine
$1,555,000
Maryland
$727,433,000
Massachusetts
$1,197,137,541
Michigan
$195,149,300
Minnesota
$254,527,000
Mississippi
$800,000
Missouri
$6,600,000
Montana
$415,197
Nebraska
$1,500,000
Nevada
$95,000
New Hampshire
$225,000
New Jersey
$910,584,000
New Mexico
$2,830,000
New York
$2,169,005,000
North Carolina
$111,724,897
North Dakota
$2,203,657
Ohio
$18,300,000
Oklahoma
$3,250,000
Oregon
$26,140,529
Pennsylvania
$835,223,000
Rhode Island
$34,847,617
South Carolina
$5,943,000
South Dakota
$1,891,229
Tennessee
$34,196,000
Texas
$29,741,067
Utah*
$0
Vermont
$6,266,976
Virginia
$157,600,000
Washington
$30,423,000
West Virginia
$2,258,342
Wisconsin
$109,438,341
Wyoming
$2,955,511
TOTALS $9,517,290,604

Capital
Amt

%

$4,850,000
$20,000,000
$900,000
$11,447,194

99.7%
32.1%
0.8%

$34,000,000
$16,300,000
$40,700,000
$54,000,000
$8,032,820

16.5%
22.5%
19.2%
36.1%
97.7%

Operating
Amt

%

Either/Both
Amt
%

$55,000,000

$312,000 100.0%
0.0%

$2,879,000

0.2%

$1,900,000
$1,385,473,949

$172,440,541
$56,300,000
$171,303,000
$4,371,906

83.5%
77.5%
80.8%
2.9%

$90,291,325

$284,329,798

23.8%

$53,750,000

21.1%

$3,810,000

63.5%

$505,000
$7,817,000
$912,807,743
$161,680,000
$131,546,000

32.5%
1.1%
76.2%
82.8%
51.7%

$4,838,437

$6,600,000 100.0%
$340,197 81.9%
$1,400,000 93.3%
$95,000 100.0%
$100,000 44.4%
$286,001,000 31.4%
$600,300,000
$43,243,450

27.7%
38.7%

$162,500
$9,963,000
$322,022,000
$244,647

5.0%
38.1%
38.6%
0.7%

$8,365,000

24.5%

$28,800,000
$2,500,000
$1,000,000
$921,900
$886,576
$1,837,990,948

18.3%
8.2%
44.3%
0.8%
30.0%
19.3%

No state funding in 2005
0.0% Funds are for capital, operating, planning
0.0% $68,000 (.3%) for planning
67.9%
99.0%
No state funding in 2005

$47,288 (.1%) for planning
60.3% $1,075,000 (.7%) for other project grants
$189,937 (2.3%) for planning
No state funding in 2005

$445,600,000 100.0%
$30,000,000
$9,840,000

$2,190,000 36.5%
$1,400,000 100.0%
$124,063
2.5%
$1,050,000 67.5%

Comments

$125,000
$278,700,000

55.6%
30.6%

$1,568,705,000
$41,711,272

72.3%
37.3%

$1,100,000

6.0%

$299,939,000 35.9%
$34,602,970 99.3%
$4,343,000 73.1%
$1,891,229 100.0%
$16,659,000 48.7%

$112,300,000
$1,850,000
$1,258,342
$98,661,400

71.3%
6.1%
55.7%
90.2%

$4,596,246,600

48.3%

$719,616,000

81.0% $7,046,940 (19%) for rail service
97.0% $300,000 (3%) for marketing, training, etc.

97.5% Funds can be used for other purposes as well.
98.9%

$33,469,300 17.2%
$69,231,000 27.2%
$800,000 100.0%
$75,000
$100,000

$345,883,000
$2,080,000

18.1%
6.7%

38.0%
73.5% $750,000 (26.5%) for planning and other.

$24,070,175 21.5% $2.7m (1.8%) for other purposes.
$2,203,657 100.0% Funds can be used for other purposes as well.
$11,000,000 60.1% $6.2m (33.9%) for other programs
$3,087,500 95.0% Funds can be used for other purposes as well.
$16,177,529 61.9% Some funds can be used for other purposes.
$75,000,000
9.0% $138,262,000 (16.5%) for other purposes.
$1,600,000

26.9% Some funds can be used for other purposes.

$5,932,000 17.3% $3.24m (9.5%)-Job Access Program
$29,741,067 100.0% Funds can be used for other purposes as well.
No state funding in 2005
$6,266,976
Funds can be used for other purposes as well.
$14,800,000
9.4% $1.7m (1.2%) for studies, etc.
$18,300,000 60.2% $7,773,000 (25.5%)-eligible uses not given
$8,373,000
$2,068,935
$2,912,218,850

7.7% $1,482,041 (1.3%) for other purposes.
70.0%
30.6% $170,834,206 (1.8%) for other purposes.

*Denotes states that do not provide state funds for transit.

3-3

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Allocation of State Transit Funding. Almost all states reported the eligible uses of funds
and how those funds were allocated. A number of states showed a mix of allocation
programs, e.g. discretionary allocation based on a formula. Out of a total of 170 funding
amounts described by the 51 programs, about 149 were divided among three
classifications: capital expenditures only, operating expenditures only, and those funds
that could be used for either capital or operating expenses.
Methods of allocation were provided for all but 36 funding amounts. Those funds to be
used for capital expenditures were mostly discretionary allocations (15) followed by
legislated (7), formula-based (7), dedicated funds (3) or some mixture of methods (3). On
the other hand, operating funds were likely to be divided between discretionary fund
allocations (16), or formula-based allocations (11), followed by legislation (8), dedicated
funds (6) or some mixture of allocation methods (19). Funds targeted for either capital or
operating expenses were distributed using formula-based allocations (14), discretionary
funding (11), through legislation (7), through dedicated funds (4), or through some
mixture of methods (13). Of the five major allocation methods, 28 percent of the funding
amounts were discretionary allocations, 21 percent were based on a formula, 15 percent
were legislated, 12 percent were dedicated funds, and 24% were a mix of funding
allocations. Population, ridership, and previous funding levels were among the most
commonly reported formula factors. Numbers of vehicles or vehicle miles traveled were
also reported, as were operating expenses. Locally generated income and local transit tax
receipts were used in some states as part of allocation formulas.
States with large cities often set aside dedicated amounts or shares for transit providers in
those urban areas. For states with a statewide public transit provider, such as Delaware
and Rhode Island, the formulas or discretionary allocations may be set by the state
legislature itself.
Changes in State Transit Funding (Table 3.3). Because all states provided information for
both the 2004 and 2005 studies, historical comparisons could be drawn relative to funding
amounts for these two time periods. Changes in funding levels between FY 2004 and FY
2005 are shown in Table 3.3 using two measures: (1) percent change in total funding and
(2) percent change in per capita funding. The former measure simply computes the
difference in raw funding amounts reported over the two years as a percentage. The latter
measure is more useful when making historical comparisons across states because it
relates population increase to changes in funding levels over time and thereby
“normalizes” the effect of varied population growth rates of individual states. Both
measures are roughly similar in raw figures (for instance, a 45-percent increase in reported
total funding and a related 43-percent increase in per capita funding), but they are not
identical. Percent changes in per capita funding may either lag or exceed percent changes
in total funding, thereby creating a different portrait of state funding activity.
Changes in overall state funding for participants in the most recent report have shown a
rather wide variance, ranging from a total funding increase of 208 percent for Maine
(corresponding to 210 percent in per capita funding) to no change in funding for 10 states,
to a 43 percent decrease in total funding (and related 43 percent per capita decrease) in
Illinois. In addition, Alaska did not fund transit in 2004 but is providing transit funds in
2005.
3-4

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

The breakdown of reported changes in total funding between the previously surveyed states
is as follows:

•

A total of 26 states reported increased total funding for transit by a range of 0.3 percent
(Wisconsin) to 208 percent (Maine).
>

One state – Alaska began funding transit in 2005.

>

Eleven states—Maine, South Dakota, Georgia, Florida, North Dakota,
Wyoming, New York, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Iowa, New Mexico—reported a
greater than 15-percent increase.

>

The remaining fifteen states—Wisconsin, Delaware, Ohio, South Carolina, DC,
Indiana, Vermont, Connecticut, Washington, California, Pennsylvania,
Montana, Texas, New Jersey, and Virginia reported a 0.3 percent to 13 percent
increase.

•

Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nebraska, and New Hampshire reported no change in funding levels in FY 2005.

•

Five states—Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Rhode Island, West Virginia reported decreases of less than 8 percent.

•

Five states—Illinois, North Carolina, Nevada, Oregon, Tennessee reported decreases
from 11 percent to 43 percent.

A summary of changes in reported per capita funding among these same states is noted below:

•

Between FY 2004 and FY 2005, 23 states reported increases in per capita funding ranging
from a 1.0 percent increase (Ohio) to 210 percent increase (Maine).

•

Eleven states—DC, Indiana, Ohio, Vermont, Connecticut, Washington, California,
Montana, Texas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey—reported increases of less than 10 percent.

•

Twelve states—Virginia, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Iowa, Minnesota, Wyoming, New
York, North Dakota, Florida, Georgia, South Dakota, Maine—reported increases in the
11 percent to 210 percent range.

•

Kentucky, Louisiana, Kansas, and New Hampshire reported no changes in per capita
funding in FY 2005.

•

Five states—Tennessee, Oregon, Nevada, North Carolina, and Illinois —reported
decreases measuring between 12 percent and 43 percent.

•

Fourteen states—West Virginia, Mississippi, Arizona, Michigan, Massachusetts,
Maryland, Wisconsin, Missouri, Arkansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Idaho,
Delaware and Nebraska, —reported a decrease of less than 10 percent.

3-5

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Table 3.3
State
Alabama*
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado*
Connecticut
Delaware
DC
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii*
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah*
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Changes in State Transit Funding Levels, 2004-2005

FY 2005
Funding

FY 2005
Per Capita

$59,850,000
$20,068,000
$2,800,000
$1,399,800,143
$0
$206,440,541
$72,600,000
$212,050,288
$149,738,231
$8,222,757

$90.18
$3.38
$1.01
$38.74
$0.00
$58.81
$86.07
$385.18
$8.42
$0.91

$312,000
$445,600,000
$37,046,940
$10,140,000
$6,000,000
$1,400,000
$4,962,500
$1,555,000
$727,433,000
$1,197,137,541
$195,149,300
$254,527,000
$800,000
$6,600,000
$415,197
$1,500,000
$95,000
$225,000
$910,584,000
$2,830,000
$2,169,005,000
$111,724,897
$2,203,657
$18,300,000
$3,250,000
$26,140,529
$835,223,000
$34,847,617
$5,943,000
$1,891,229
$34,196,000
$29,741,067
$0
$6,266,976
$157,600,000
$30,423,000
$2,258,342
$109,438,341
$2,955,511

$0.22
$34.91
$5.91
$3.42
$2.19
$0.34
$1.10
$1.18
$129.89
$187.09
$19.28
$49.59
$0.27
$1.14
$0.44
$0.85
$0.04
$0.17
$104.45
$1.47
$112.65
$12.87
$3.46
$1.60
$0.92
$7.18
$67.20
$32.38
$1.40
$2.44
$5.73
$1.30
$0
$10.06
$20.83
$4.84
$1.24
$19.77
$5.80

FY 2004
Funding
$0
$0
$20,068,000
$2,800,000
$1,317,933,858
$0
$200,167,000
$72,000,000
$208,252,896
$96,504,077
$4,858,257
$0
$312,000
$778,700,000
$36,200,751
$8,600,000
$6,000,000
$1,400,000
$4,962,500
$505,000
$789,511,418
$1,291,363,175
$209,652,400
$214,255,000
$800,000
$6,600,000
$390,000
$1,500,000
$125,000
$225,000
$837,476,000
$2,402,000
$1,811,372,000
$154,680,000
$1,545,700
$18,100,000
$2,750,000
$31,444,655
$785,151,000
$36,839,916
$5,864,000
$996,000
$38,532,100
$27,741,068
$0
$6,103,254
$140,100,000
$29,150,000
$2,294,162
$109,077,870
$2,466,127

FY 2004
Per Capita
$0
$0
$3.49
$1.02
$36.72
$0
$57.13
$86.71
$376.23
$5.55
$0.55
$0
$0.22
$61.25
$5.80
$2.91
$2.19
$0.34
$1.10
$0.38
$142.05
$201.26
$20.73
$42.00
$0.28
$1.15
$0.42
$0.86
$0.05
$0.17
$96.27
$1.26
$94.21
$18.11
$2.44
$1.58
$0.78
$8.75
$63.29
$34.09
$1.40
$1.29
$6.53
$1.23
$0
$9.82
$18.78
$4.70
$1.26
$19.80
$4.87

FY 2003
Funding
$0
$0
$13,768,000
$2,800,000
$1,294,100,000
$0
$186,100,000
$74,600,000
$198,038,000
$93,500,000
$5,232,669
$0
$312,000
$754,000,000
$34,800,000
$9,500,000
$6,000,000
$1,400,000
$4,962,500
$2,250,000
$763,500,000
$1,165,492,492
$207,800,000
$229,200,000
$0
$6,600,000
$390,000
$1,600,000
$325,000
$200,000
$812,900,000
$0
$1,763,200,000
$91,700,000
$1,620,000
$20,700,000
$2,750,000
$30,910,000
$823,800,000
$37,442,000
$6,000,000
$923,000
$30,400,000
$25,700,000
$0
$5,300,000
$131,500,000
$39,900,000
$2,200,000
$108,900,000
$1,500,000

FY 2003
Per Capita
$0
$0
$2.47
$1.03
$36.47
$0
$53.43
$91.25
$351.52
$5.49
$0.60
$0
$0.23
$59.59
$5.62
$3.23
$2.20
$0.34
$1.10
$1.72
$138.59
$181.16
$20.62
$45.30
$0
$1.16
$0.43
$0.92
$0.15
$0.16
$94.10
$0
$91.88
$10.91
$2.56
$1.81
$0.78
$8.68
$66.62
$34.79
$1.45
$1.21
$5.20
$1.16
$0
$8.56
$17.80
$6.51
$1.22
$19.90
$2.99

Change- ChangeTotal Per Cap.
Funding Funding

0.0%
0.0%
6.2%

-3.2%
-1.2%
5.5%

3.1%
0.8%
1.8%
55.2%
69.3%

2.9%
-0.7%
2.4%
51.7%
64.8%

0.0%
-42.8%
2.3%
17.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
207.9%
-7.9%
-7.3%
-6.9%
18.8%
0.0%
0.0%
6.5%
0.0%
-24.0%
0.0%
8.7%
17.8%
19.7%
-27.8%
42.6%
1.1%
18.2%
-16.9%
6.4%
-5.4%
1.3%
89.9%
-11.3%
7.2%

-0.8%
-43.0%
1.8%
17.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
209.7%
-8.6%
-7.0%
-7.0%
18.1%
-2.2%
-1.1%
5.7%
-0.8%
-21.3%
0.0%
8.5%
16.5%
19.6%
-29.0%
41.9%
1.0%
17.4%
-17.9%
6.2%
-5.0%
-0.2%
88.9%
-12.2%
5.8%

2.7%
12.5%
4.4%
-1.6%
0.3%
19.8%

2.4%
10.9%
2.9%
-1.3%
-0.2%
19.2%

Note:
** Texas provides funds on a biennial basis. Figures shown are average annual funds for the biennium.
Source: The population statistics to derive per capita figures are published by the U.S. Census Bureau, “State
Population Estimates: July 1, 2005, published in December, 2005.”
3-6

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

„ State Transit Funding Summary
A snapshot of all states surveyed in the FY 2005 effort, shown in Table 3.4, reveals that
total transit funding by state varies widely across the nation, ranging from zero dollars in
funding to $2.169 billion. Four states—Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, and Utah—do not
fund transit at the state level. On the other hand, states such as New York, California,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Illinois, among others, have
made large state investments in transit ranging from $445.6 million to $2.169 billion.
Table 3.5 shows state funding ranked by per capita funding levels. In terms of per capita
funding, the District of Columbia reported committing the most resources,1 followed by
Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Alaska and Delaware. California and
Rhode Island reported committing almost equal amounts per capita, in spite of the large
variance in total funding. In sum, 16 states (including the District of Columbia) reported
between $18 per capita and $385 per capita commitments, whereas the remaining states
reported zero dollars per capita to slightly less than $13 per capita. Generally, the states
with more urban characteristics and more extensive public transit services reported higher
total and per capita figures.

1

The District of Columbia per capita figure is artificially high. WMATA extends well beyond the
District boundaries into Maryland and Virginia and therefore serves a population much larger than
that of the District. Per capita figure is calculated only for District investment per District resident
population.

3-7

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Table 3.4

Level of Investment Reported by All States and DC, Ranked
by Total Funding
State
District of Columbia
Massachusetts
Maryland
New York
New Jersey
Alaska
Delaware
Pennsylvania
Connecticut
Minnesota
California
Illinois
Rhode Island
Virginia
Wisconsin
Michigan
North Carolina
Vermont
Florida
Oregon
Indiana
Wyoming
Tennessee
Washington
North Dakota
Iowa
Arizona
South Dakota
Kansas
Ohio
New Mexico
South Carolina
Texas
West Virginia
Maine
Missouri
Louisiana
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Georgia
Nebraska
Montana
Kentucky
Mississippi
Idaho
New Hampshire
Nevada
Alabama*
Colorado*
Hawaii*
Utah*

Note:

FY 2005 Per
FY 2005 Funding Capita Costs Population Figures
$212,050,288
$385.18
550,521
$1,197,137,541
$187.09
6,398,743
$727,433,000
$129.89
5,600,388
$2,169,005,000
$112.65
19,254,630
$910,584,000
$104.45
8,717,925
$59,850,000
$90.18
663,661
$72,600,000
$86.07
843,524
$835,223,000
$67.20
12,429,616
$206,440,541
$58.81
3,510,297
$254,527,000
$49.59
5,132,799
$1,399,800,143
$38.74
36,132,147
$445,600,000
$34.91
12,763,371
$34,847,617
$32.38
1,076,189
$157,600,000
$20.83
7,567,465
$109,438,341
$19.77
5,536,201
$195,149,300
$19.28
10,120,860
$111,724,897
$12.87
8,683,242
$6,266,976
$10.06
623,050
$149,738,231
$8.42
17,789,864
$26,140,529
$7.18
3,641,056
$37,046,940
$5.91
6,271,973
$2,955,511
$5.80
509,294
$34,196,000
$5.73
5,962,959
$30,423,000
$4.84
6,287,759
$2,203,657
$3.46
636,677
$10,140,000
$3.42
2,966,334
$20,068,000
$3.38
5,939,292
$1,891,229
$2.44
775,933
$6,000,000
$2.19
2,744,687
$18,300,000
$1.60
11,464,042
$2,830,000
$1.47
1,928,384
$5,943,000
$1.40
4,255,083
$29,741,067
$1.30
22,859,968
$2,258,342
$1.24
1,816,856
$1,555,000
$1.18
1,321,505
$6,600,000
$1.14
5,800,310
$4,962,500
$1.10
4,523,628
$2,800,000
$1.01
2,779,154
$3,250,000
$0.92
3,547,884
$8,222,757
$0.91
9,072,576
$1,500,000
$0.85
1,758,787
$415,197
$0.44
935,670
$1,400,000
$0.34
4,173,405
$800,000
$0.27
2,921,088
$312,000
$0.22
1,429,096
$225,000
$0.17
1,309,940
$95,000
$0.04
2,414,807
$0
$0
$0
$0

* The DC figure is artificially high. WMATA extends into Maryland and Virginia and therefore serves a
population much larger than that of DC. Calculation is based on DC investment per DC residents.
** Texas provides funds on a biennial basis. Figures shown are average annual funds for the biennium.
Source: The population statistics to derive per capita figures are published by the U.S. Census Bureau, “State
Population Estimates: July 1, 2005, published in December 2005.”

3-8

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Table 3.5

Level of Investment Reported by All States and DC, Ranked
by Per Capita Funding
State
District of Columbia
Massachusetts
Maryland
New York
New Jersey
Alaska
Delaware
Pennsylvania
Connecticut
Minnesota
California
Illinois
Rhode Island
Virginia
Wisconsin
Michigan
North Carolina
Oregon
Vermont
Florida
Indiana
Wyoming
Tennessee
Washington
North Dakota
Iowa
Arizona
South Dakota
Kansas
Ohio
New Mexico
South Carolina
Texas
West Virginia
Maine
Missouri
Louisiana
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Georgia
Nebraska
Montana
Kentucky
Mississippi
Idaho
New Hampshire
Nevada
Alabama*
Colorado*
Hawaii*
Utah*

FY 2005 Per
FY 2005 Funding Capita Costs Population Figures
$211,822,288
$384.77
550,521
$1,197,137,541
$187.09
6,398,743
$727,433,000
$129.89
5,600,388
$2,169,005,000
$112.65
19,254,630
$910,584,000
$104.45
8,717,925
$59,850,000
$90.18
663,661
$72,600,000
$86.07
843,524
$835,223,000
$67.20
12,429,616
$206,440,541
$58.81
3,510,297
$254,527,000
$49.59
5,132,799
$1,399,800,143
$38.74
36,132,147
$445,600,000
$34.91
12,763,371
$34,847,617
$32.38
1,076,189
$157,600,000
$20.83
7,567,465
$109,438,341
$19.77
5,536,201
$195,149,300
$19.28
10,120,860
$154,680,000
$17.81
8,683,242
$49,585,874
$13.62
3,641,056
$6,266,976
$10.06
623,050
$149,738,231
$8.42
17,789,864
$37,046,940
$5.91
6,271,973
$2,955,511
$5.80
509,294
$34,196,000
$5.73
5,962,959
$30,423,000
$4.84
6,287,759
$2,203,657
$3.46
636,677
$10,140,000
$3.42
2,966,334
$20,068,000
$3.38
5,939,292
$1,891,229
$2.44
775,933
$6,000,000
$2.19
2,744,687
$18,300,000
$1.60
11,464,042
$2,830,000
$1.47
1,928,384
$5,943,000
$1.40
4,255,083
$29,741,067
$1.30
22,859,968
$2,258,342
$1.24
1,816,856
$1,555,000
$1.18
1,321,505
$6,600,000
$1.14
5,800,310
$4,962,500
$1.10
4,523,628
$2,800,000
$1.01
2,779,154
$3,250,000
$0.92
3,547,884
$8,222,757
$0.91
9,072,576
$1,500,000
$0.85
1,758,787
$415,197
$0.44
935,670
$1,400,000
$0.34
4,173,405
$800,000
$0.27
2,921,088
$312,000
$0.22
1,429,096
$225,000
$0.17
1,309,940
$95,000
$0.04
2,414,807
$0
$0
$0
$0

Note:

* The District of Columbia per capita figure is artificially high. WMATA extends well beyond the District
boundaries into Maryland and Virginia, and therefore serves a population much larger than that of the
District. Per capita figure is calculated only for District investment per District resident population.
** Texas provides funds on a biennial basis. Figures shown are average annual funds for the biennium.
Source: The population statistics to derive per capita figures are published by the U.S. Census Bureau, “State
Population Estimates: July 1, 2005, published in December, 2005.”

3-9

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

4.0 Overview of State and Local
Ballot Initiatives
„ Overview
The trend of voter-approved investment in public transportation continued in 2005, as 23
of 28 ballot measures scored transit victories (82% approval rate in 2005). Though the
number of transit-related referenda was merely half of that considered during 2004 (56
ballot issues in 2004), the approval rate remained well above 50% since 2002 (80% in
2004, 64% in 2003, 46% in 2002).
Often, large or mid-size cities fail more than once before finally achieving breakthroughs
at the ballot box. One major reason is that many local elections are influenced more by the
economy than by the level of support for public transit. In the following cities, successful
issues in 2005 represented the second or third attempt to gain voter approval of dedicated
funding sources, usually after residents experienced the effects of service reductions to
their local transportation system due to financing shortages:
•

Anchorage, Alaska (bond obligation);

•

Saginaw, Michigan (property tax);

•

Steubenville, Ohio (property tax); and

•

Vancouver, Washington (sales tax).

In the places noted below, successful issues were the result of funding renewals which
were well-received by voters:
Property Tax, Renewal:
•

Branch County, Michigan;

•

Flint, Michigan (successful renewals also in 1996 and 2001);

•

Holland, Michigan; and

•

Youngstown, Ohio (2 separate successful renewals in 2005, effective concurrently).

4-1

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Sales Tax, Renewal:
•

Juneau, Alaska.
1

In this section, 28 transit-related ballot initiatives in 2005 are profiled. As noted by the
2
Center for Transportation Excellence (CFTE), voter support for 23 of these issues comes
at a time when many public transportation systems are experiencing strong growth in
ridership, coupled with increasing demand for new or extended services. In the last five
years, transit use has increased faster than any other mode of people transportation.
Table 4.1 shows the ballot results by funding type. The top source for dedicated funding in
2005 was property taxes, either new/increase or renewal, which is the funding mechanism
of choice for places in the Midwestern States of Michigan and Ohio, together accounting
for 12 ballot issues in 2005. Western States like California and Washington prefer to pass
sales taxes to fund transportation. Places in California produced a bumper crop of 13
ballot issues in 2004, the majority of which offered funding via sales taxes, but during

1

Some of the profiles were derived from various articles in Passenger Transport, the weekly publication of
the
American
Public
Transportation
Association
(APTA),
available
online
at
http://www.apta.com/passenger_transport/thisweek/. These articles include the following: "New York,
Washington States Lead Ballot Victories," November 14, 2005; "Voters Approve C-TRAN Tax
Referendum," September 26, 2005; "Flint, Michigan, Voters Retain Transit Millage," August 8, 2005;
"Steel Valley Voters Approve Tax Levy," May 23, 2005; "Holland, Mich., Voters Renew Tax for Transit,"
May 16, 2005; "Community Leaders Share Success Stories on Transit Ballot Initiatives," May 16, 2005;
"Ben Franklin Transit to Expand Service Area," May 9, 2005; "Anchorage Voters Pass Transit Bond
Referendum," April 11, 2005; "Barre, VT, Voters Back Increased Transit Funding," March 21, 2005; "San
Carlos, Calif., Votes Down Funding for Shuttle," March 14, 2005; "Saginaw, Mich., Voters Approve
Millage for Transit," February 28, 2005. Other sources include the Center for Transportation Excellence
(CFTE), ″2005 Transit Ballot Measures,″ available online at http://www.cfte.org/success/; ″Maine
Government News: Secretary of State Announces Official Election Results,″ Maine.gov official web site of
State of Maine, December 1, 2005; ″Editorial: Issue 1 Mattered Most,″ Cleveland Plain Dealer, November
10, 2005; ″State Issue 1 Approved by Wide Margin Locally,″ Parma Sun Post, November 10, 2005;
″Livonia Will Quit Bus System,″ Detroit Free Press, November 9, 2005; ″SATA Millage OK'd; Hall Wins
Council Spot,″ Flint Journal, November 9, 2005; ″Voters Approve Transit Bonds for $2.9 Billion,″ New
York Times, November 9, 2005; ″Seattle Monorail Project to Sell Property, Director Says,″ Seattle Times,
November 9, 2005; ″CDOT Must Map Future Without Boost of (Referendum) D,″ Denver Post, November
3, 2005; ″Voters (in Castle Rock) Bury RTD, Stadium Taxes,″ Denver Post, November 2, 2005; ″Voters
Say Yes to (Referendum) C,″ Denver Post, November 1, 2005; ″Upper Ark Valley Voters Face Decisions
on Funding,″ Pueblo Chieftain, October 26, 2005; ″Your Guide to the Gas-Tax Initiative,″ Seattle Times,
October 15, 2005; ″Proposition 1 Sets Up Fund for Relocation of Rail Lines,″ Houston Chronicle, October
9, 2005; ″Pool and Airport Expansion Voted Down; Doll, Sanford and Anderson Leading,″ Juneau Daily
News, October 5, 2005; ″Transit Millage, Renovation Tax Pass,″ Grand Rapids Press, August 3, 2005;
″Transit Board Approves Placing 2 Levies on November Ballot,″ Youngstown Vindicator, July 29, 2005;
″Oak Bluffs Voters Face 22 Articles, $19.5 Million Budget at Annual Meeting,″ Martha's Vineyard Times,
March 31, 2005; ″Supporters Hope Voters Hop Onboard,″ Eagle Tribune, March 7, 2005.

2

The Center for Transportation Excellence, headquartered in Washington, D.C., is a non-partisan center for
policy research, created to serve the needs of communities and transportation organizations nationwide by
providing research materials, strategies, and other forms of support on the benefits of public transportation.
Additional information is available online at http://www.cfte.org .

4-2

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

2005 many counties in the state were still in the planning stages of future initiatives, most
likely deferring transit proposals until 2006 for voter consideration.

Table 4.1 2005 Ballot Results, by Type of Initiative
Approved by Voters
Initiative Type

Total

Number

Percent

All Initiatives

28

23

82%

■ Funding Initiatives Only

25

22

88%

● Dedicated Sales Tax, New or Increase

3

2

67%

● Dedicated Sales Tax, Renewal

1

1

100%

● Dedicated Property Tax, New or Increase

6

5

83%

● Dedicated Property Tax, Renewal

5

5

100%

● Dedicated Bond Issue

5

4

80%

● Warrant to Approve Budgetary Expense

3

3

100%

● Reallocate Surplus Tax (Reject a Refund)

1

1

100%

● Retain Gasoline Tax (Refuse a Repeal)

1

1

100%

■ Miscellaneous Issues (Voter Advisories,
Jurisdictional Matters, Non-Funding
Measures)

3

1

33%

● Create an Unfunded Account for Freight
Rail Relocation

1

1

100%

● Retain Planned Monorail System

1

0

0%

● Retain Existing Bus Service

1

0

0%

Two distinct pro-transit success stories deserve special mention — the ballot-box
victories in the State of Michigan during the year and the support of statewide issues on
Election Day in November.

Pro-Transit Success throughout Michigan
Residents in 6 Michigan cities/counties voted overwhelmingly to continue or increase
property taxes that would support their local transit systems. In fact, voters in Shiawassee
County, a rapidly suburbanizing area of southcentral Michigan, approved two separate
property-tax issues, effective consecutively. The 7 winning millages passed by an average
of more than 30 percentage points (basically a 2-to-1 margin of victory), which constitutes
a voting landslide. The only defeat occurred in a non-funding transit issue in the Michigan
4-3

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

suburb of Livonia (west of Detroit), which opted to withdraw from the regional bus
system.
The closest of the "yes" votes occurred in Saginaw, where the proposal passed by 81 votes,
out of almost 5,000 votes cast on February 22. The voters' verdict halted a death sentence
for Saginaw Transit Authority Regional Services (STARS), caused by the loss of a 3-mill
renewal levy in 2004, worth nearly $1.9 million annually. Voters had to approve the 2005
measure in the face of negative press reports detailing a smorgasbord of unorthodox
management decisions and poor behavior at STARS. Among the damaging disclosures
involving STARS staff and board members were sloppy accounting, hiring of a temporary
chauffeur for top officials, approving a $0.6 million office revamp with bathroom and
shower, approving a General Manager's contract with 138 paid days off annually, ratifying
a spending plan with overestimated revenues of $2.5 million, and using sexually graphic
language at tape-recorded staff meetings. The Saginaw city manager and urban policy
experts agree — the transit victory in 2005 salvaged the city's image from an ugly
3
episode.

Transit Support of Statewide Issues on Election Day
On Election Tuesday in November (November 1st or 8th, depending on the state), voters in
6 states faced 7 statewide initiatives to support public transportation, 6 of which were
approved (86% of the Election Day total), thereby garnering a whopping total of nearly
$10.3 billion for transit purposes.
Stephanie Vance, program manager at CFTE, noted, "Once again, voters have sent a loud
and clear message that they believe public transportation is a good investment, and one
they are willing to support with their own tax dollars. The consistency of support for more
4
choice and more investment … is truly remarkable."
In Washington State, voters were offered an opportunity to repeal an increase in their
gasoline tax of 9½ cents per gallon, which is valued at $5.3 billion for roadway projects.
However, they scored a transportation victory by "refusing a repeal and resisting a
rollback," thereby retaining new transportation funding. In New York State, voters
approved $2.9 billion in bonds for transportation projects. Ohio voters also approved a
bond initiative for $1.35 billion to improve roads and bridges. So too did Maine voters
with a $33.1 million bond issue.

3
4

″Voters Salvage STARS,″ Saginaw News, February 23, 2005.
″Voters (in New York, Washington) Approve $8.5 Billion in Transportation Investments,″ available online
from the Center for Transportation Excellence at http://www.cfte.org/newsroom.asp .

4-4

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Voters in Colorado were offered two ballot initiatives regarding transportation, one of
which passed. They chose to "reject a refund" of $3.7 billion in surplus taxes, thereby
allowing about $0.5 billion to be earmarked for maintenance of existing roads, bridges, and
other transportation-related projects. However, a companion measure to fund new
highway projects with $1.2 billion in bonds was defeated by a narrow margin of less than
15,000 votes (about 1.4% of the 1.1 million votes cast).
As a non-funding measure in Texas, voters approved the creation of a railrelocation/improvement fund that could be used to convert aging freight lines for use by
urban commuter trains.
The following two sections present short profiles of the 28 ballot measures in 2005. The
first section gives measures that were approved by voters; the second provides measures
that were defeated by voters.

„ Ballot Initiatives Approved by Voters
Voters approved 23 initiatives (82% of total) during 2005. In terms of ballot measures
affecting mid-size to large cities, voters in Anchorage (Alaska) favored bonds to upgrade
their existing transit system, those in Juneau (Alaska) renewed a sales tax for a new
downtown transit center, those in both Flint and Holland (Michigan) supported a propertytax renewal for existing public bus service, those in Youngstown (Ohio) approved two
separate but concurrent property-tax renewals to maintain existing public transit, and those
in Vancouver (Washington) endorsed a sales-tax increase to restore transit service
previously lost.

Anchorage, Alaska
Date of Ballot: 4 – 5 – 2005
Margin of Approval: 56% to 44%
Nature of Proposal: Buy at least 1 new full-size bus, replace para-transit vehicles (for
disabled citizens) in the AnchorRides system, upgrade the existing vanpool system,
maintain bus stop shelters, and provide new computer systems that would improve
efficiency and cut long-term costs in the city's "People Mover" transit system.
Means of Funding: Obligate bonds to raise about $1.9 million. The bond money will be
used to match federal capital grants available to the city transit system on a 4:1 ratio,
equaling $7.7 million of federal contributions for a total allocation of nearly $10
million. A similar bond initiative failed in April 2004, 52% to 48%.

4-5

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Juneau, Alaska
Date of Ballot: 10 – 4 – 2005
Margin of Approval: 61% to 39%
Nature of Proposal: Undertake a variety of local infrastructure projects, including a new
downtown transit center and parking facilities. Several non-transit undertakings were
included in this proposal: improvements at Statter Harbor in Auke Bay, expansion of
areawide sewer system, and provision of a chair lift in Eaglecrest ski area.
Means of Funding: Extend an existing 1-cent sales tax for 33 months, until July 2008.

Colorado (Statewide)
[1 of 2 Ballot Initiatives (1 approved, 1 defeated) on November 1]
Date of Ballot: 11 – 1 – 2005
Margin of Approval: 52% to 48%
Nature of Proposal: Maintain existing roads, bridges, and other strategic transportation
projects.
Means of Funding: Allow the state to retain up to $3.7 billion in surplus taxes over 5 years
that otherwise would have been refunded (in the amount of nearly $500 per taxpayer)
to residents per provision in the state constitution's 1992 Taxpayer's Bill of Rights
(TABOR). Monetary needs for lower education (grades K – 12), higher education
(university, college, community college), police/firefighter pension, and health care
will take priority. Realistically, however, at least $100 million per year through 2010
will be earmarked for transportation-related purposes.

Maine (Statewide)
Date of Ballot: 11 – 8 – 2005
Margin of Approval: 67% to 33%
Nature of Proposal: Improve Maine's highways and bridges, airports, public transit, stateowned ferry vessels, ferry and port facilities, port and harbor structures, statewide
bicycle trails, and pedestrian areas.
Means of Funding: Obligate bonds to raise about $33.1 million, thereby making the State
eligible for nearly $160 million in matching funds from federal and other sources.

6 Towns on Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts (Aquinah, Chilmark, Edgartown, Oak
Bluffs, Tisbury, West Tisbury)
Date of Ballot: 4 – 12 – 2005
Margin of Approval: All 6 towns approved (approval of 4 of 6 towns required to pass a
warrant for transportation purposes)

4-6

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Nature of Proposal: Provide extended fixed-route bus service, para-transit service (for
disabled citizens), and year-round transportation for the Seniors' Day Program, as part
of a 2-year pilot program offered by Vineyard Transit Authority (VTA).
Means of Funding: Enact a warrant authorizing a budgetary expense, up to $60,680 per
year depending on the town, as a town's share of the 2-year cost of the program,
estimated at $410,000.

Barry County, Michigan
Date of Ballot: 8 – 2 – 2005
Margin of Approval: 59% to 41%
Nature of Proposal: Maintain existing service while adding 2,800 service hours covering
570 square miles, especially in the rural areas served by Barry County Transit (BCT),
for implementation by January 2006. Following passage, the new revenue stream will
offset an anticipated decrease in state funding.
Means of Funding: Increase the property tax by 0.25 mill (2.5¢ per $100 of property value)
in Barry County to generate about $40,000 annually for the next 10 years. This ballot
initiative marked Barry's first countywide public transit millage since BCT's inception
in 1982.

Branch County, Michigan
Date of Ballot: 2 – 22 – 2005
Margin of Approval: 68% to 32%
Nature of Proposal: Maintain existing public transportation in the county provided by
Branch Area Transit Authority (BATA), and avoid service cuts in 2005.
Means of Funding: Renew the existing property tax of 0.35 mill (3.5¢ per $100 of property
value) in Branch County.

Flint, Michigan
Date of Ballot: 8 – 2 – 2005
Margin of Approval: 75% to 25%
Nature of Proposal: Maintain existing public bus transportation provided by Mass
Transportation Authority (MTA), and continue to fund bus routes throughout the city.
Means of Funding: Renew the existing property tax of 0.6 mill (6¢ per $100 of property
value) in Flint for a 5-year period. This millage is in addition to a Genesee Countywide MTA tax of 0.8 mill, for a total of 1.4 mills of MTA tax to Flint residents. Since
the initial approval of this millage in 1991, Flint voters have renewed it in 1996 and
2001.

4-7

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Holland, Michigan
Date of Ballot: 5 – 3 – 2005
Margin of Approval: 80% to 20%
Nature of Proposal: Maintain existing public bus transportation in the city provided by
Macatawa Area Express (MAX), and avoid service cuts in 2005.
Means of Funding: Renew the existing property tax of 0.6 mill (6¢ per $100 of property
value) in Holland for the duration of a 3-year period through June 2008. State and
federal transportation grants provide about 70% of the funds needed to operate MAX.

Saginaw, Michigan
Date of Ballot: 2 – 22 – 2005
Margin of Approval: 50.8% to 49.2% (proposal approved by 81 votes, of 4,800 cast)
Nature of Proposal: Support STARS (Saginaw Transit Authority Regional Services) bus
service in the region, and restore some of the service cuts made in fiscal year 2004.
Expand bus routes from 8 to 12, begin hourly schedules, add 2 – 3 extra dial-a-ride
LIFT buses for disabled and elderly citizens, and rehire 10 laid-off bus drivers.
Means of Funding: Enact a property tax of 3.0 mills (30¢ per $100 of property value) to
generate a total of about $5.5 million for the duration of a 3-year period through 2007.
A similar 3-mill renewal levy failed in March 2004 by about 200 votes, 52% to 48%.

Shiawassee County including Corunna, Michigan
[1 of 2 Ballot Initiatives (both approved, effective consecutively) during 2005]
Date of Ballot: 2 – 22 – 2005
Margin of Approval: 75% to 25%
Nature of Proposal: Maintain existing public transportation in the county provided by
Shiawassee Area Transportation Agency (SATA), and avoid service cuts in 2005.
Means of Funding: Enact a property tax of 0.2325 mill (2.325¢ per $100 of property value)
in Shiawassee County to generate about $12,000 annually for 2005.

Shiawassee County including Corunna, Michigan
[1 of 2 Ballot Initiatives (both approved, effective consecutively) during 2005]
Date of Ballot: 11 – 8 – 2005
Margin of Approval: 64% to 36%
Nature of Proposal: Maintain existing public transportation in the county provided by
Shiawassee Area Transportation Agency (SATA), and avoid service cuts in 2006.
Means of Funding: Enact a property tax of 0.2434 mill (2.434¢ per $100 of property value)
in Shiawassee County to generate about $13,750 annually for 2006.

4-8

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

6 Towns in Southeastern New Hampshire (Danville, Derry, Hampstead, Pelham,
Plaistow, Salem)
Date of Ballot: 3 – 8 – 2005
Margin of Approval: 5 of 6 towns approved (only 1 town, Pelham, voted against proposal)
Nature of Proposal: Establish a fixed-route bus system linking 11 communities along the
corridor of Interstate 93, including creation of a network of vehicles, called a
brokerage, to be owned by existing human services agencies to transport seniors,
disabled citizens, and low-wage workers.
Means of Funding: Enact a warrant authorizing a budgetary expense, varying from $800 to
$8,800 depending on the town, as a town's share of the first-year cost of the program,
estimated at $216,000. The rest of the money would come from grants provided by
non-profit organizations and federal matching funds provided by the Federal Transit
Administration.

New York (Statewide)
Date of Ballot: 11 – 8 – 2005
Margin of Approval: 55% to 45%
Nature of Proposal: Finance transportation projects statewide. In New York City alone,
transportation projects include linkage between Long Island Railroad and Grand
Central Terminal, completion of 1st segment of 2nd Avenue subway (from East 96th to
East 63rd Streets, abandoned during the city's fiscal crisis of the mid-1970's), and
repair/upgrade of Van Wyck Expressway in Queens, Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive and
Henry Hudson Parkway in Manhattan, and West Shore Expressway in Staten Island.
Funding will be split evenly between the Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(MTA) and New York Department of Transportation (NY DOT).
Means of Funding: Obligate bonds to raise about $2.9 billion over 5 years.

Ohio (Statewide)
Date of Ballot: 11 – 8 – 2005
Margin of Approval: 54% to 46%
Nature of Proposal: Improve Ohio's roads and bridges.
Means of Funding: Obligate bonds to raise about $2 billion, of which $1.35 billion over 10
years would be earmarked for road and bridge improvement.

4-9

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Steubenville and Mingo Junction, Ohio
Date of Ballot: 5 – 3 – 2005
Margin of Approval: 61% to 39%
Nature of Proposal: Support operational and capital improvement costs for the Steel Valley
Regional Transit Authority (SVRTA), maintain existing public transportation in
Jefferson County, and avoid service cuts in 2005.
Means of Funding: Enact a property tax of 1.5 mills (15¢ per $100 of property value) to
generate nearly $0.5 million annually for 10 years. A tax levy of 1 mill, approved in
1994, expired at the end of 2004, but a renewal levy failed in November 2004.

Youngstown, Ohio
[1 of 2 Ballot Initiatives (both approved, effective concurrently) on November 8]
Date of Ballot: 11 – 8 – 2005
Margin of Approval: 62% to 38%
Nature of Proposal: Maintain existing public transportation in the area provided by
Western Reserve Transit Authority (WRTA), and avoid service cuts in 2006.
Means of Funding: Renew a property tax of 2 mills (20¢ per $100 of property value) to
generate about $1 million annually for 10 years.

Youngstown, Ohio
[1 of 2 Ballot Initiatives (both approved, effective concurrently) on November 8]
Date of Ballot: 11 – 8 – 2005
Margin of Approval: 64% to 36%
Nature of Proposal: Maintain existing public transportation in the area provided by
Western Reserve Transit Authority (WRTA), and avoid service cuts in 2006.
Means of Funding: Renew a property tax of 2 mills (20¢ per $100 of property value) to
generate about $1 million annually for 4 years. This levy dates from 1982.

Texas (Statewide)
Date of Ballot: 11 – 8 – 2005
Margin of Approval: 54% to 46%
Nature of Proposal: Create a specific but unfunded account in the state treasury, and a
funding source, in preparation to help pay to relocate private or publicly owned freight
rail lines for relief of congestion on highways in urban areas, to refurbish rail facilities
in consideration of increased public safety or improved air quality, and to upgrade old
freight lines for use by urban commuter trains.
Means of Funding: Not a funding issue. The Texas Transportation Commission would
administer the fund and could issue bonds pledged against it. However, the Texas
State Legislature would have to provide initial funding in 2007.
4-10

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Barre, Vermont
Date of Ballot: 3 – 1 – 2005
Margin of Approval: 50.9% to 49.1% (proposal approved by 20 votes, of 1,164 cast)
Nature of Proposal: Fund the operation of 18 buses and para-transit vehicles (for disabled
citizens) for the Green Mountain Transit Agency (GMTA).
Means of Funding: Approve a municipal budgetary expense of $36,572 for 2005. The
previous funding level was $21,000 in 2004. GMTA set the new funding level by
means of a "fair share" equation based on general population, total number of elderly
and disabled residents, and the percentage of those living below the poverty line.

Washington (Statewide)
Date of Ballot: 11 – 8 – 2005
Margin of Vote: 53% opposed to repeal to 47% in favor
Nature of Proposal: Repeal a tax increase of 9½ cents per gallon of gasoline, to be phased
in over 4 years (already begun with 3 cents per gallon added in July 2005) and to fund
nearly 280 road projects in the state, such as repair and expansion of Interstate 405 and
the damaged Alaskan Way Viaduct. Last spring, the Washington State Legislature
passed the gas tax increase, which is permanent unless repealed. Hence, voter defeat of
this "issue to repeal" is really a transportation victory, thereby retaining new
transportation funding.
Means of Funding: Allow the state to retain up to $5.3 billion projected in gasoline taxes
over the next 16 years that otherwise would have been eliminated.

Finley, Washington (a rural area of Benton County)
Date of Ballot: 4 – 26 – 2005
Margin of Approval: 64% to 36%
Nature of Proposal: Obtain transit service from Ben Franklin Transit, with bus service
possible as soon as July 2005.
Means of Funding: Increase the sales tax by ³/5 cent.

4-11

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Clark County including Vancouver, Washington
Date of Ballot: 9 – 20 – 2005
Margin of Approval: 67% to 33%
Nature of Proposal: Maintain existing public transportation in the county provided by C –
TRAN, and restore service to neighboring communities, including the Vancouver
branch of Washington State University. Otherwise, service cuts of 46% were
scheduled for implementation on September 25, 2005.
Means of Funding: Increase the local sales tax by ²/10 cent. A similar sales tax increase of
³/10 cent failed in November 2004, 54% to 46%.

„ Ballot Initiatives Defeated by Voters
Voters defeated 5 initiatives (18% of total) during 2005. In the State of Colorado, voters
squashed bond funding for new highway projects, but the narrow margin of defeat (less
than 15,000 votes of the 1.1 million votes cast) may encourage proponents to try again
with different strategy. In Seattle, the elevated-rail project was grounded by overtaxed
voters. San Carlos (California) voters decided to shoot SCOOT, the local shuttle service,
by turning down a property tax. Voters in Livonia (Michigan) chose to part from SMART,
the regional bus system. Likewise, those in Castle Rock (Colorado) rejected an offer to
join Denver's transit system.

San Carlos, California (a suburban city located between San Francisco and San Jose)
Date of Ballot: 3 – 8 – 2005
Margin of Defeat: 55% opposed to 45% in favor (⅔ majority required to pass a tax for
transportation purposes)
Nature of Proposal: Subsidize free shuttle service provided by San Carlos Optimal
Operational Transit (SCOOT). SCOOT operated 9 regular routes during the day,
including school service, on a pilot basis since 2002. In addition, SCOOT had
provided free, door-to-door service within the city during off-hours. Defeat of the
ballot measure means that SCOOT will shut down operations by mid-June 2005.
Means of Funding: Enact a property tax of $59 per year per parcel of taxable land, for an
annual total of $650,000 for 5 years.

4-12

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Colorado (Statewide)
[1 of 2 Ballot Initiatives (1 approved, 1 defeated) on November 1]
Date of Ballot: 11 – 1 – 2005
Margin of Defeat: 50.7% to 49.3%
Nature of Proposal: Hasten new construction of 55 of the state's most critical highway
projects, including significant improvements to Interstate 25 in Denver and Colorado
Springs and major interchange improvements at West 6th Avenue – Wadsworth
Boulevard and at 120th Avenue – Boulder Turnpike. Defeat of this initiative also
means that the state must scramble to find enough money in its shrunken budget to
match highway dollars available from Washington, DC, or else lose federal money.
Means of Funding: Obligate about $2.1 billion in revenue bonds, of which $1.2 billion
would be earmarked for new highway projects.

Castle Rock, Colorado (a suburban city located 30 miles south of Denver, population of
35,000)
Date of Ballot: 11 – 1 – 2005
Margin of Defeat: 78% to 22%
Nature of Proposal: Support Denver's Regional Transportation District (RTD). According
to Castle Rock Mayor Ray Waterman, "We support mass transit, just not that particular
offer (RTD). The town is working on long-range plans that include a variety of public
transportation."
Means of Funding: Increase the sales tax by 1¢ to provide about $5 million annually.

Livonia, Michigan (a suburb of Detroit, population of over 100,000)
Date of Ballot: 11 – 8 – 2005
Margin of Vote: 55% in favor of withdrawal to 45% opposed
Nature of Proposal: Withdraw from southeastern Michigan's Suburban Mobility Authority
for Regional Transportation (SMART) bus system. Hence, voter approval of this
"issue to withdraw" is really a transportation defeat, thereby ending involvement in the
regional transit system. Livonia becomes the first municipality in a decade to depart
the regional system, which has 74 municipal participants. Regional bus service will
end effective August 2006.
Means of Funding: Not a funding issue. Livonia already funds SMART with an existing
property tax of 0.6 mill (6¢ per $100 of property value), which generates nearly $2.8
million annually. Following voter approval to withdraw from SMART, the property
tax will be reduced to 0.5 mill, thereby generating about $2.4 million annually for the
development of Livonia's own community transit program.

4-13

Characteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation – 2005

Seattle, Washington
Date of Ballot: 11 – 8 – 2005
Margin of Vote: 64% to "derail the rail" versus 36% to save the monorail
Nature of Proposal: Specifically, the proposal asked voters to save the Seattle Monorail
Authority by scaling back the original 14-mile Seattle Monorail Project to a 10-mile
line from West Seattle to Interbay. The monorail prevailed in 4 previous campaigns,
including a 2004 measure that tried to shut down the project, rejected by 63% of voters
– so what happened this time? The answers, in a nutshell, were rising costs and elected
officials who refused to "sugar-coat" the financial realities. The $2-billion project had
steadily risen in cost, and the proposed financing plan called for a bond pay-off of 50
years that would have escalated the total price tag, including interest charges, to $11
billion. Earlier in the year, when State Treasurer Mike Murphy bluntly stated that the
project was hemorrhaging debt at the rate of $1 million per week, voters awakened.
Means of Funding: Not a funding issue. In the wake of monorail's death, real estate
acquired for the project will be sold to pay off about 65% of the agency's debts, now
totaling $110 million. Taxpayers must "foot the bill" to retire the rest of the debt.

4-14

Appendix A

2005 State Transit Program Contacts
The following individuals are the primary contacts for gathering and editing the material in this report:

STATE

NAME

PHONE

FAX

E-MAIL

Alabama

Joe Nix

334 353 6421

334 353 6451

nixj@dot.state.al.us

Alaska

Debbi Howard

907 465 2883

907 465 6984

Debbi_Howard@dot.state.ak.us

Arizona

Sam Chavez

602 712 7465

602 712 3046

schavez@azdot.gov

Arkansas

James Newcomb

501 569 2475

501 569 2476

Mickey.Newcomb@Arkansashighways.com

California

Kimberly Gayle

916 654 8074

916 654 9366

kimberely.gayle@dot.ca.gov

Colorado

Eric Ellis

303 757 9771

303 757 9727

eric.ellis@dot.state.co.us

Connecticut

Ray Godcher

860 594 2805

860 594 2056

raymond.godcher@po.state.ct.us

Delaware

Stephanie Burris

302 760 2860

302 760 2913

sburris@mail.dot.state.de.us

DC

Rosemary Covington

202 673 1735

202 673 1733

rcovington@dc.dot.gov

Florida

Ed Coven

850 414 4500

850 414 4508

Georgia

Stephen Kish

404 651 9210

404 657 4221

ed.coven@dot.state.fl.us
steve.kish@dot.state.ga.us

Hawaii

Ken Tatsuguchi

808 587 1845

808 587 2362

kn.tatsuguchi@Hawaii.gov

Idaho

Janet Weaver

208 334 8828

208 344 4424

jweaver@itd.state.id.us

Illinois

Charles Kadlec

312 793 2184

312 793 1251

abrahamcw@dot.il.gov

Indiana

Stephanie Belch

317 232 1482

317 232 1499

Sbelchl@indot.state.in.us

A-1

Appendix A

2005 State Transit Program Contacts
Iowa

Peter Hallock

515 239 1765

515 233 7983

peter.hallock@dot.state.ia.us

Kansas

John Rasacher

785 296 0342

785 296 0963

rosacker@ksdot.org

Kentucky

Vickie Bourne

502 564 7433

502 564 2058

vickie.bourne@KY.gov

Louisiana

Carol Cranshaw

225 274 4302

225 274 4314

carolcranshaw@dotd.lousiana.gov

Maine

Barbara Donovan

207 624 3250

207 624 3251

barbara.donovan@maine.gov

Maryland

Lisa Dickerson

410 767 3943

410 333 0901

Ldickerson1@mtamaryland.com

Massachusetts

Steve Walsh

617 973 7052

617 523 6454

Michigan

Gus Lluberes

517 373 8820

517 373 7997

stephen.walsh@state.ma.us
lluberesg@michigan.gov

Minnesota

Judy Ellison

651 296 1376

651 297 7252

ja.ellison@dot.state.mn.us

Mississippi

Charles Carr

601 359 7800

601 359 7777

ccarr@mdot.state.ms.us

Missouri

Steve Billings

573 751 2523

573 526 4709

steven.billings@modot.mo.gov

406 444 6120

406 444 7671

psanders@state.mt.us

Montana
Nebraska

Jerry Wray

402 479 4694

402 479 3692

jwray@dor.state.ne.us

Nevada

Jim Mallery

775 888 7464

775 888 7207

jmallery@dot.state.nv.us

New Hampshire

Chris Morgan

603 271 2468

603 271 6767

cmorgan@dot.state.nh.us

New Jersey

John Leon

973 491 7160

973 491 7968

jleon@njtransit.com

New Mexico

Donald Martinez

505 827 1574

505 827 0431

donald.martinez@nmshtd.state.nm.us

New York

Ronald Epstein

518 457 8362

518 457 8358

repstein@dot.state.ny.us

North Carolina

Miriam Perry

919 733 4713 x243

919 733 1391

mperry@dot.state.nc.us

A-2

Appendix A

2005 State Transit Program Contacts
North Dakota

Bruce Fuchs

701 328 2194

701 328 1404

bfuchs@state.nd.us

Ohio

Jane Smelser

614 644 8054

614 466 0822

jane.smelser@dot.state.oh.us

Oklahoma

Kenneth LaRue

405 521 2584

405 521 2533

klarue@odot.org

Oregon

Dinah Van Der Hyde

503 986 3885

503 986 4189

dinah.vanderhyde@odot.state.or.us

Pennsylvania

Bob Smeltz

717 787 1219

717 772 2985

rsmeltz@state.pa.us

Rhode Island

Robert Shawver

401 222 2694

401 222 2207

rshawver@dot.state.ri.us

South Carolina

James Frierson

803 737 0831

803 737 0145

friersonjm@scdot.org

South Dakota

Bruce Lindholm

605 773 3574

605 773 3921

bruce.lindholm@state.sd.us

Tennessee

Jim Ladieu

615 741 2781

615 253 1482

jim.Ladieu@state.tn.us

Texas

Eric Gleason

512 416 2816

512 416 2830

bkilleb@dot.state.tx.us

Utah

Leone Harwood

801 964 4508

801 965 4551

lharwood@utah.gov

Vermont

Krista Chadwick

802 828 5750

802 828 3983

krista.chadwick@state.vt.us

Virginia

Charles Badger

804 786 8135

804 225 3664

charles.badger@drpt.virginia.gov

Washington

Cathy Silins

360 705 7919

360 705 6820

silinsc@wsdot.wa.gov

West Virginia

Susan O’Connell

304 558 0428

304 558 0174

soconnell@dot.state.wv.us

Wisconsin

John Alley

608 266 0189

608 266 0658

John.Alley@dot.state.wi.us

Wyoming

Robert Milburn

307 777 4411

307 777 4759

bob.milburn@dot.state.wy.us

A-3